did not state that the disposition, as was the fact, was to himself in liferent, and to another in fee 1.

It would appear, that it is not essential to condescend in the claim, upon the retour which is to be adduced in evidence of the old extent, if the qualification is rested on that kind of valuation. A retour is not, in relation to this question, one of the titles of the lands, as it is merely adduced in evidence of the extent. Accordingly, in one instance a retour not mentioned in the claim, was admitted in support of another retour which had been mentioned 3.

The statute expressly requires that the dates of the titles shall be set forth in the claim. In one instance, however, the Court repelled an objection, founded on the omission of the date of one charter, and the erroneous statement of that of another. In another instance, the objection was repelled, that the date of the claimant's retour had not been given"; but as it does not appear to be necessary to particularize the retour, this case is not a precedent as to the necessity of setting forth the dates of titles. In a later case, where the claim bore, that the sasine was dated 3d May 1810, and recorded on 23d June of the year foresaid,' whereas the true date was 1809; and where it appeared, that if the date mentioned in the claim had been the true one, a year had not elapsed from the infeftment, the error was found to be fatal to the claim; and Lord President Blair, in delivering his opinion on this case, appears to have rested his opinion not merely on the principle, that, if the date is given, it must be given accurately; but upon the general ground that the setting forth the dates of the titles in the claim is a statutory requisite 6.

1 Buchanan v. Fisher, 7th July 1824; Fac. and Shaw.

2 See Bell, p. 35.

Scot and Tod v. Millar, 20th February 1787; Sup. to Wight, p. 15, and Fac.

4

* Skene v. Graham 1787; Wight, p. 151, Note.

5 Ogilvy v. Coutts, 1768, Wight, ib.

* Monro v. Monro, 9th March 1811; Fac.

It is equally incumbent upon an heir-apparent as upon any other claimant, to comply with the statutory requisites regarding a claim. In one case a person claimed as heir-apparent to his father, in virtue of his father's charter and in⚫ feftment in the lands of Mayen and others therein specified, lying within the parish of Rothemay, and county of Banff; which charter and infeftment are herewith produced;" and the objection was sustained, that the claim did not specify the dates of the predecessor's titles, the particular lands, or their extent or valuation 1.

It appears also to be essential for a person asking to restrict his qualification to a part of the lands on which he was originally enrolled, to lodge a previous claim 2; and this is done in practice.

In a case which recently occurred, a freeholder had been enrolled on certain lands, the liferent of which he afterwards disposed of to a third party, retaining the fee. He then presented to a meeting of freeholders, a petition, praying that certain other lands should be added to the lands on which he was already enrolled,-that his qualification should then be restricted to those lands thus added,--and that he should be allowed to retain his place on the roll. It was objected that this was not truly a case of restriction; but an entire new qualification, which, therefore, did not entitle the freeholder to retain his place on the roll. It was answered, that any freeholder may add to his qualification and then restrict it,that this operation cannot affect his place on the roll,—and that, as this operation could undoubtedly have been effected at two meetings, there was no reason why it should not be done at one. The Court affirmed the judgment of the freeholders, which had granted the prayer of the petition 3.

The next point of inquiry regards the titles which must be produced in evidence of the qualification of a claimant, and

1

1 Gordon v. Abernethy, 3d March 1773; Fac.

2 Stewarts v. Campbell, 9th August 1774; Fac.

3 Morison v. Earl of Fife, 28th February 1826; Fac. and Shaw.

the objections to those titles which it is competent for a court of freeholders to make.

The general rule is, that the only titles which freeholders are entitled to investigate, are the charter and sasine of the claimant ; and that if these are ex facie formal, he has a right to be enrolled. It must, however, be considered as comprehended in this rule, that the claimant must produce all titles which are requisite to connect his infeftment with the charter on which it proceeds; and that it is competent, within certain limits, to the freeholders to state objections to the manner in which he connects himself with his character. When a charter is not directly in favour of the claimant but of his author, and the latter has granted in favour of the former a disposi tion to the lands, containing an assignation to the charter, upon the precept of which the claimant is infeft; or where the charter is in favour of one whom the claimant represents, and who was not infeft, and the claimant has acquired right to the precept in the charter by a general service, in such cases the disposition and assignation, or the retour of service, forms part of the titles which the claimant must produce to the freeholders. The rule as to the necessity of producing the disposition and assignation, was enforced in the case of a claim of enrolment by a fiar, although it had formerly been produced when the liferenter was enrolled, as appeared from the minutes, since which time it had been lost or mislaid. In a previous instance, a relaxation of the general rule was admitted to a certain extent, by a judgment of the House of Lords, in a case where a retour of general service, by which the immediate author of the claimant took up the unexecuted precept of sasine, had not been produced to the meeting of freeholders; but the sheriff-clerk, who was also clerk of the meeting, acknowledged to the meeting that it had been delivered to him, and that he had it that morning, although he

* Edmonstone, 29th February 1780; Fol. Dict. iii. 434.

could not then find it. The Court of Session, even in these circumstances, enforced the general rule, and found that the claimant was not entitled to be enrolled1; but the House of Peers, on the ground that the retour was in the hands of the clerk on the morning of the meeting, and was then accidentally lost, so that an extract could not be got during the sitting of the meeting, but which extract was produced to the Court of Session, reversed the judgment. In a subsequent case also, one of the titles was allowed, under particular circumstances, to be supplied in the Court of Session. In this instance, no objection, founded on the want of the disposition carrying the charter, had been made at the meeting of freeholders; and the claimant had consequently been deprived of the opportunity of remedying the defect, by actually producing the disposition which was then in his possession. In these circumstances, the claimant was allowed to produce it in the Court of Session, in a complaint against his enrolment, which complaint was dismissed; and the judgment was approved of by the Committee of the House of Commons.

It has been mentioned, that it is competent for the freeholders to consider objections stated to the manner in which the claimant connects himself with his crown-charter. In one case an objection of this nature was urged, which, in reality, resolved itself into an allegation that the claimant was not properly infeft, in so far as respected the titles on which he founded. The claimant asked enrolment, in right of his wife, and it having been objected, at the meeting of freeholders, to her infeftment, that the precept of the charter on which it proceeded was exhausted by a previous sasine which had been taken on it, the Court found that the claimant was not entitled to be enrolled. This power, however, of objecting to

1

Douglas v. Reid, 2d January 1768; Fac.

3 Hamilton v. Cathcart, March 6. 1780; Fac.

2 Fol. Dict. iii. 436.

4 Lindsay Carnegie v. Robertson Scott, 26th February 1796; Fac. It appears from the Session Papers in this case, that an extract of the prior

the mode of connecting the charter and infeftment, must be understood within certain limits. With respect to the titles produced, in evidence of the steps by which a claimant's infeftment is connected with his charter, such as dispositions and retours, it will in general be equally incompetent to state any objections but those appearing ex facie, as with respect to the charter and sasine themselves. Freeholders, for example, could not listen to an allegation that the retour of service had proceeded on insufficient evidence.

Besides the titles, properly so called, which a claimant is bound to exhibit to the freeholders, he must also bring forward proper evidence of the valuation of the lands on which he claims; and such evidence cannot be afterwards supplied in the Court of Session. In the case of the valuation being

sasine was produced to the freeholders, in evidence of the exhaustion of the precept. Afterwards, in the Court of Session, the original sasine seems to have been produced, which shewed, that the notary had signed each leaf only, and not each page, a circumstance which could not appear from the extract, as the pages of the original sasine are necessarily confounded in the record. It appears from the Faculty Report, and from the following notes, that the Court thought the objection to the sasine, grounded on the omission of the notary, not to be well founded; and hence the precept was held to be exhausted, and the enrolment on the second sasine to be bad.

Note, from the Session Papers of Lord President Campbell, of his opinion. ⚫ Objection to Sasine.-Precept exhausted by former sasine.-Evidence * produced to freeholders. But supposing it had not, it was competent to ' produce and found on it here as an objection to the last sasine.-See Wight, p. 139, &c. Case of Gordon of Whitly, &c. An objection of ⚫ this kind is not jus tertii. It does not merely resolve into a ground of 'challenge competent to a third party. It is a radical defect in the in' vestiture, and amounts to a nullity of the title ;--e. g. in the case of a 'charter proceeding upon a wadset, the wadset right itself may be reco'vered and produced, to shew that it is an improper wadset. The first 'sasine here was liable to no good objection. The act of sederunt 1756 seems to proceed on a mistake.-Justice-Clerk. No doubt as to competency, if the objections be good. Freeholders must be satisfied that * claimant is infeft. No good objection to first sasine. Act 1696 does not 'apply to instruments;e. g. witnesses must subscribe every page of a sasine. Construction of act 1681 (1686)—enough to sign every lea£

C