|Countess of Sutherland v. Dunbar
||Register of Sasines (Deeds), Burden of Proof, Presumption
||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.
|Kibble v. Ross
||4 Dec 1804
||Lordship, Succession, Register of Sasines (Deeds)
||After the death of Mr. Robert Corse, disputes arose regarding his succession. One of the disputes was over the property rights of some lands of Eastern Greenland that he had supposedly granted to his wife Elizabeth Ross (Defendant). Mr. Kibble, as the pursuer, questioned the title (life-rent-investment) that conferred the right to Mrs. Ross. He argued that it was null and void because it lacked the required formalities to constitute such right. After the proceedings, the Lords found the life-rent-investment over the lands of Greenland to be valid and effectual.