[Court of Session—1st Division.]
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lord Meadowbank. |
| Judgment Date | 16 June 1829 |
| Court | Court of Session (Inner House - First Division) |
| Docket Number | No. 392. |
| Date | 16 June 1829 |
Lord Meadowbank.
Entail.—
Sequel of the case noticed ante, Vol. VI. No. 253. p. 706, (which see.) By the judgment there pronounced, the Court repelled the objection to the competency of the action, that an heir of entail could not insist for any other redress than that afforded by the entail, and particularly for reparation of damage sustained by acts of the heir in possession, in violation of the terms of the entail; but ‘with reference to the question whether such action lies where the heir is not lucratus,’ they remitted to the Lord Ordinary to prepare the cause. A record having been made up, and the question having been reported on Cases, and the parties being at issue as to the fact whether the heir had been lucratus or not, the Court remitted the cause to the Jury Court.
A remit made to the Jury Court in an action of damages against the representatives of an heir of entail alleged to have violated the entail, to ascertain whether he had been lucratus by the violation.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anwar v The Advocate General (representing the Secretary of State for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy)
... ... [2021] UKSC 44 Supreme Court Michaelmas Term On appeal from: [2019] CSIH 43 ... Lord Hodge, Deputy ... 22 The First Division of the Court of Session (the Lord President, Lord Drummond Young and Lord Malcolm) by majority ... ...