66 'OLD q' 



Gilbert Kennedy; and after wading through a few 

 grants and regrants from that period to the date 

 of the deed^ upon which Lord March chiefly based 

 his claim, began to do what might have been done or 

 urged at the outset — i.e. point out that the appellant, 

 Lord March, was 'excluded by the most clear and 

 express words from its benefits ' ; also, that the late 

 Earl of Cassillis was bound by his own marriage 

 settlement (which was an onerous deed) not to alter 

 the order of succession established by the entail of 

 1698, and, therefore, could not cancel his own deed 

 by making a gratuitous settlement in favour of the 

 respondent. This is briefly the sum and substance 

 of both sides of the case for which his lordship and 

 the baronet Utigated until January 27th, 1762, when 

 the House of Lords dismissed Lord March's claim, 

 and adjudged the Earldom of Cassillis to Sir Thomas 

 Kennedy. Though unsuccessful. Lord March still 

 ' considered the cause ' worth contesting, and changed 

 his tactics by litigating for the estates of the Earl- 

 dom of Cassillis. Defeat again awaited his lord- 

 ship's second visit to the House of Lords as a 

 Htigant. 



It would be interesting to know what part, either 

 by advice or monetary assistance (assuming one or 



1 The entail of 1698. 



