BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Scottish Court of Session Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> David Wood of Craige v David Moncur. [1591] 1 Brn 126 (00 January 1591)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1591/Brn010126-0256.html

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


[1591] 1 Brn 126      

Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION reported by SIR ROBERT SPOTISWOODE OF PENTLAND.
Subject_2 Such of the following Decision as are of a Date prior to about the year 1620, must have been taken by Spotiswoode from some of the more early Reporters. The Cases which immediately follow have no Date affixed to them by Spotiswoode.

David Wood of Craige
v.
David Moncur

1591.

Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy

Roger Wood of Craige, liferenter, contracted with his son David, fiar, to excamb the lands of C. with the lands of D. during their lifetime; in the which contract it was provided, that the tenants and possessors of the lands should not be removed, but should continue in their possessions as long as their tack lasted which they had to run. After both their deceases, David, the fiar's son, warned one David Moncur, tacksman of the lands of C. to flit and remove. Excepted, That he ought not, because he had tacks for terms to run, set to him by the pursuer's father, to whom he was heir, and so behoved to warrant the same. Replied, That any tack he had was by virtue of the excambion, and the excambion being made but for the lifetimes of the two contractors, it could not be extended to a third person, not being a contractor, nor any mention being made of him in the said contract. Duplied, That, albeit the defender was not contractor, yet there was a provision made in the same in his favours, that his tack should be kept to him, which provision the complainer should keep to him, he being heir to his father. The Lords found that the provision ought to be extended to the third person, being tacksman.

Page 63.

The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting     


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1591/Brn010126-0256.html