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!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> The Laird of Renton v The Lady Hundswood. [1634] 1 Brn 352 (25 July 1634) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1634/Brn010352-0935.html |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR GEORGE AUCHINLECK OF BALMANNO.
Date: The Laird of Renton
v.
The Lady Hundswood
25 July 1634 Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
There is a bond by the Laird of Rcntone to John Stewart, Francis Stewart, Robert Douglass, and the Goodman of Morestoune, whereby Rentone is obliged to them, for a tack set to him of the teinds of Flemyngtoune, to pay to the foresaid persons, having best right, the sum of 500 merks yearly; and farther, obliges him to set, to the Lady Hundswood, her teind during her lifetime, for £100 yearly. This bond is registrate; and, within half a year after the registration, the Laird of Rentone obtains a discharge of his bond and haill contents thereof, from Robert Douglas, Francis and John Stewarts; but Morestoune was at that time deceased, and did not consent to the discharge. Rentone pursues the Lady Hundswood for the wrongous intromission with the teinds. She defends for herself, upon the clause contained in the registrate bond. To the which it was replied, That this bond would not defend her:—1mo, It was not granted to her. 2do, It was discharged by the persons to whom it was granted. Duplied, The bond being registrate, became her evident, in so far as it concerned the teinds therein mentioned. 2do, A clause, being conceived in favours of a third party, either in bond or contract, cannot be discharged but by consent of the third party. 3tio, Morestoune consented not to the discharge, who was one of the parties to whom the bond was granted. The Lords found the exception and duply relevant.
Page 18.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting
