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 >>
Watson v Fleming. [1666] Mor 2817 (6 February 1666)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1666/Mor0702817-055.html Cite as:
[1666] Mor 2817
Assignation to Mails and Duties, with other Rights.
Watson v. Fleming
Date: 6 February 1666 Case No. No 55.
Assignation out of the first and readiest of the teinds of several lands in security and payment of a debt, was not found good against a posterior apprising of the lands and teinds.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
There being an infeftment of annualrent granted out of lands and teinds, and an assignation to the teind duties, in so far as extended to the annualrent, the teinds and lands were thereafter apprised from the common author before the annualrenter had obtained possession, by his real right, of the annualrent, but only by his assignation to the teind duties. It was alleged by the appriser, That the assignation to the teind duties could give no longer right than the property thereof remained in the cedent's person; which ceasing by the apprising, the assignation ceased therewith, as is ordinarily and unquestionably sustained in assignations to mails and duties of land. It was answered, That there was great difference betwixt lands which require infeftment to transmit the same, and teinds which require none, but are conveyable by an assignation; for, if this had been by an assignation to the tack of teinds, pro tanto, it would have been unquestionably valid; and therefore being an assignation to the teind duties, it is equivalent as a disposition to lands, which would carry the right of a reversion, though not exprest, and though there were no more to dispone but the reversion only. It was answered, That if the assignation had been to the teinds, that is to the right, or if it had been to the full teind duty in the tack, or of certain lands, then the case might have been dubious; but being not of the teind duties of any particular lands, but out of the first and readiest of the teinds of several lands, it was not habilis modus.
