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 £5, 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!
You are here:BAILII >>
Databases >>
Scottish Court of Session Decisions >>
Wood v Moncur. [1591] Mor 7719 (#date December 1591)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1591/Mor1907719-001.html Cite as:
[1591] Mor 7719
Stipulations in favour of third parties. - Order to pay money to third parties. - Effect to the third party, of voidance of the right by which he had been favoured.
Wood v. Moncur
1591.
December. Case No. No 1.
Provisions in favour of a third party sustained, although he was ignorant that such provisions were made.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Roger wood, some time of Craig, as liferenter, contracted with his son David Wood fiar, to excamb the lands of C. with the lands of D. and this excambion during their lifetimes; and, in the same contract, it was provided, that the tenants and possessors of the lands should not be removed, but all the space of their tacks, which they had for years to run, should be kept to them. After the decease of the said Roger and David, Wood of Craig, oye to the said Roger, and son to the said David, fiar, warned one David Moncur, tacksman of the lands of C, to flit and remove therefrom. Answered, That he ought not to remove; because he had tacks and assedations, for terms to run, set by his father; and, being heir to his father, behoved to warrant his tacks. It was answered, That if any tack he had, it was by virtue of the said contract of excambion, which being made but for the lifetime of the said two contractors, could not be extended to a third person, for the defender was not a contractor, nor no mention made of him in the contract. Answered, Albeit the defender was no contractor, yet there was a provision made in the same in his favours, that his tacks should be kept to him; and the pursuer being heir to his father, behoved to keep the same.——The Lords found, that the provision in the contract might be kept to the third person, and to the tacksman.
