In a ranking and sale, William Dunbar of Fulfordlees submitted a claim based on a heritable bond of corroboration. The petitioners objected to Dunbar’s claim on the ground that the seisin (possession of land by freehold) on the bond was not properly registered. In particular, they argued that there was no evidence that the seisin had been registered within the legally prescribed time period. In response, Dunbar produced an extract from the Inverness burgh register. The extract showed that the seisin had been recorded without a date, like other registrations from the same time period. According to Dunbar, this established a presumption that the seisin was timely registered, and it was the petitioners’ burden to rebut that presumption.
People involved
- Elizabeth Leveson-Gower, Countess of Sutherland — Petitioner
- William Dunbar, of Fulfordlees — Respondent
- George Fergusson, of Hermand, Lord Hermand — Advocate for Petitioner
- William Craig, Lord Craig — Advocate for Respondent
- John Campbell, Lord Stonefield — Lord Ordinary
- George Ross, of Cromarty — Named in case documents
- James Dunbar — Named in case documents
- George Dunbar — Named in case documents
- Hugh Monro, of Clayside — Named in case documents
- William Dunbar, of Kincorth — Named in case documents
- William Fraser — Named in case documents
- William Sutherland, Earl of Sutherland — Named in case documents
Places
In a ranking and sale, William Dunbar of Fulfordlees submitted a claim based on a heritable bond of corroboration. The petitioners objected to Dunbar’s claim on the ground that the seisin (possession of land by freehold) on the bond was not properly registered. In particular, they argued that there was no evidence that the seisin had been registered within the legally prescribed time period. In response, Dunbar produced an extract from the Inverness burgh register. The extract showed that the seisin had been recorded without a date, like other registrations from the same time period. According to Dunbar, this established a presumption that the seisin was timely registered, and it was the petitioners’ burden to rebut that presumption.
