EDITOR R. CANDLISH HENDERSON, LL.B., ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY J. B. BALLINGALL, A. C. BLACK, J. SMITH CLARK, M. MILLAR CRAIG D. OSWALD DYKES, D. P. FLEMING, W. A. FLEMING R. W. LYALL GRANT, GEORGE HART, R. HENDRY D. S. MACDIARMID, JAMES MACDONALD JOHN S. MACKAY, W. J. ROBERTSON AND ALEXANDER TAYLOR ADVOCATES OF SCOTS APPEALS IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS FROM 1707 SUPREME COURTS OF SCOTLAND 1800 TO 1873 VOLUME II ELECTION ΤΟ JUSTICIARY EDINBURGH WILLIAM GREEN & SONS T. & T. CLARK AGENTS IN GLASGOW WILLIAM HODGE & COMPANY; JOHN SMITH & SONS 1910 THE SCOTS DIGEST 1800 TO 1873 ELECTION CHALLENGE OF DEED, 3-17. DEBTOR, CHOICE OF, 1–2. EQUITABLE COMPENSATION, 22-27, 32. IGNORANCE, EFFECT OF, 9, 29, 39-41, 4849, 53. INSANITY, 28. INTESTACY, RIGHTS ON, 61-62. tion contract, no new liability was incurred by his being confirmed as executor-creditor; and as the pursuer had elected to take decree under the composition contract, he was barred from getting decree against the cautioner in the confirmation. Baillie v. Dickson, 1849, 11 D. 1162; 21 J. 459. 3. Deed-Approbate and Reprobate. —A father disponed subjects to A, whom failing, to B. Held that a party in right of A, although he founded on this disposition as giving him a title, could yet point out that from its nature EXCLUSION OF, see title Husband and it was such that the pursuer could not extract Wife. JUS RELICTE, TERCE, AND TESTAMENTARY LEASE, 30. LEGITIM AND TESTAMENTARY PROVISION, 24, 46-60, 63. EXCLUSION OF,See title Parent and Child. LIFERENTER'S ELECTION, 31-32, 57. MARRIAGE-CONTRACT AND OTHER PROVISION, 32, 35-38. REPRESENTATIVES, 33-34, 43. TESTAMENTARY PROVISIONS, 64. TRUSTEES, TUTORS, AND GUARDIANS, 9, 53. from it a better title. Irving v. Hyslop, 1837, 15 S. 993; 12 Fac. 926. See Livingston v. Warrock, 1773, 6 Pat. 790. 4. Deed Challenging-Refusing Effect to Deed-Exercise.-B was A's testamentary trustee, and merged his estate with his own, and attempted to alter in some respects the testamentary directions of A. Under both A's and B's settlements X was a beneficiary. Held that X had not reprobated B's settlement, or excluded himself from taking benefit under it, either by vindicating the right of himself and the other persons interested in the settle1. Choice of Debtor-Principal and Agent ment of A, to have his estate administered as a Sale. The purchaser of a horse at an auction separate estate under A's settlement, and by held not entitled to sue both the auctioneer refusing effect to those parts of the settlement and the principal, on alleged breach of war-A, or by proceedings subsequently adopted by of B which attempted to alter the settlement of ranty. An action against both dismissed as against the auctioneer, in respect the pursuer, alleging that the principal had taken the horse back, must be held to have elected to sue the principal. Ferrier v. Dods, 1865, 3 M. 561; 37 J. 270. 2. Choice of Debtor-Composition Contract Executry. A son agreed with his deceased father's creditors, that, on his father's estate being conveyed to him, he should pay 15s. on his father's debts, and find caution for the remaining 5s. He afterwards was confirmed his father's executor-creditor, the cautioner for the composition becoming also cautioner in the confirmation. In an action by a creditor against the son and the cautioner, the latter admitted liability for an instalment of 5s. on the debt, but the pursuer insisted further against him as cautioner under the confirmation. Held that, as the son was to have right to the father's whole estate under the composi ment Act, for disentailing the residue of A's him under the powers of the Entail Amendestate. Douglas' Trs. v. Douglas, 1862, 24 D. 1191; 34 J. 642. 5. Deed-Challenging — Effect of. — Ques tion, whether the doctrine of approbate and reprobate applied to the case of an heir founding in defence on provisions in a deed which he ferred a benefit on him. Crawford's Trs. v. had partially reduced, which indirectly conCrawford, 1867, 5 M. 275; 39 J. 145. 6. Deed Challenging - Effect of. — A testator conveyed his whole estate to trustees directing them to pay the interest to his sisters, who were also his heirs. The sisters reduced the deed ex capite lecti quoad the heritage. Held that they could not claim the interest of the moveable estate either as legatees or as heirs ab intestato. Observed, that a deed not valid as to the conveyance of property might be |