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!
You are here:BAILII >>
Databases >>
Scottish Court of Session Decisions >>
Countess of Traquair v Cranston. [1667] Mor 6221 (2 February 1667)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1667/Mor1506221-028.html Cite as:
[1667] Mor 6221
Process against Sub-Tacksmen and Intromitters, with Subjects hypothecated. - What if caution or payment has been offered by the Intromitters, or if sufficiency has been left to answer the rent.
Countess of Traquair v. Cranston
Date: 2 February 1667 Case No. No 28.
Found, that a subtenant's stocking is liable to the landlord's hypothec as well as the tenant's.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The Countess of Traquair being infeft in liferent in the lands of Shillinglaw, and others, and having right to the Whitsunday's duty 1666, obtaining a decreet in her own baron court against Marion Howatson, and the relict and bairns of Andrew Johnston, for payment of the sum of 4000 merks proportion ally; and that, for the Whitsunday's mails 1666, there is a pursuit to make furthcoming against Cranstoun of Olea, in whose hands the sums due to them were apprised;—it was alleged, There could be no process to make furthcoming; because it is offered to be proved that the said Marion Howatson having only a subtack from Andrew Johnston her son, who was tacksman, she made payment of the term's duty to him, and obtained his discharge. To which it was replied, Not relevant, except it were alleged that she was subtacksman to the said Andrew, she made payment of the said term's duty to him, after the same pursuit at the Countess's instance against her; and as to the deceased Andrew his discharge of the said term's duty from the deceast Earl of Traquair, it is noways relevant, being before the term of payment, especially in prejudice of the pursuer, who is a singular successor, and who doth not represent the said Earl, and who unquestionably hath right to the teind-duty.—The Lords found, that a subtenant's goods were liable codem modo to the master, for a year's duty, as the tenant's goods are.
