Cassillis peerage, 1760-4

10
of Honour and Dignity was by Law understood to
descend in the same Channel, as it is not possible
to believe that the Persons who enjoyed this Rank
and Dignity would for Ages have anxiously con-
veyed their Estates to Heirs Male, if they had un-
derstood that the Dignity could have descended to
Heirs Female.
VI. As the Descent of Peerages (originally con-
ferred without Patents) to the nearest Heir Male of
the Person first ennobled, has uniformly taken Place
in a great Number of the noble Families of Scot-
land ; so this Rule of Descent was never called in
Question until the Year 1729» in a Dispute be-
fore the Court of Session, between Simon the late
Lord Lovat, the undoubted Heir Male of the Person
first ennobled in the Year 1540, and Hugh Fraser,
Esq., the nearest Heir of Line, descended of a
Daughter of Hugh Lord Lovat, who died in 1697- —
On Occasion of this Dispute, many Instances of the
Descent of Peerages (without Patents) in the Male
Line, to the Exclusion of the nearer Heirs Female,
were exhibited and proved to the Satisfaction of the
Court of Session. And though some Instances were
likewise brought, tending to show that such Dig-
nities had sometimes been assumed by the nearest
Heir Female, yet the Court, being of Opinion that
all Dignities thus conferred before Patents were in-
troduced descended by Law to the nearest Heir
3d July 1730. Male of the Person first ennobled, they found the
Title and Honours of Lord Fraser of Lovat de-
scended to Heirs Male, and of Right belonged to
the said Simon late Lord Lovat, as Heir Male of
the Family of Lord Fraser of Lovat. — This Judg-