Comments in refutation of pretensions advanced for the first time, and statements in a recent work "The Stirlings of Keir and their family papers"

30 COMMENTS ON KEIE PEEFOEMANCE,
During the entire period from 1414 till 1522 inclusive, wlien Andrew of
Cadder died, the Cadder succession had invariably opened to parties who
conjoined in themselves the status both of heirs-male and heirs-at-law of the
body of the entailer in 1414, and who made up their titles to each other as
" heirs," — a term which, in our practice,'' could, in these circumstances, alone
denote heirs-male.
State of the But, on Audi'ew's death in 1522, a disseveration of the former representa-
presenta- tion occurred, owing to his having left only one child, a daughter, Janet,
death of his hciress, at least at common law ; and the question then appositely oc-
fladderin curred, Who, by that event, might legally be his heir "? Indubitably Janet,
respective (Jirect heir of line of William of Cadder, in virtue of the re-grant of that
rights of "
male and of pi'operty to him, his heirs and assigns, in 1509 — to Uchiltree, and probably
''°^' also some other family acquisitions since 1414. But again, it maybe asked.
Who, in 1522, was entitled to succeed to the bulk and remainder of the old
patrimony entailed in 1414 1 From what we can discern, there having been
no resignation of it since that year, it legally behoved not to go to Janet,
the heir-female, but to the heir-male of Anckew of Cadder, provided he were of
the body of the entailer, in terms of the entail ; t and it is remarkable that
some corroboration of it may perhaps be obtained from the grant of James V.
to Sir John Stirling of Keir, of the marriage of Janet of Cadder in 1529,
iSeeKeh- whcrc, failing her, that of the " airis maill or famel" (female), also is con-
ance, veycd, as sail " happin to succeid to the said umquhile Andro (of Cadder,) in his
No. 119. heiretage ; " ^ preference being here given to his heirs-male. Sir John Stirling,
however, a bold and unscrupulous character, had resolved to conjoin Cadder
in its entirety with Keir, through a marriage between the said Janet and his
son James ; and with this view, he, soon after her father's death, contem-
plated obtaining a grant of her ward and marriage, which he ultimately
effected, but with considerable difficulty and cost. It was not impracticable
for such a man, in such an age, with the dexterity which marked his family —
with the purchased concurrence of adverse interests, and with the connivance
of others — to have the status of heir of Cadder (whicli she in some degi-ee
* For full proof of tliis, by cogent prece- t There may liave been, as in all such cases,
dents and authorities in the fifteenth and si.x- some subtleties and intervening incidents un-
teeiith centuries, see Supplemented Case, 1852, known, to give another aspect to the matter ;
to claim of the Earl of Crawford for the Duke- but such seems the natural inference,
dom of Montrose, pp. 162-6.