A party who had deponed in a Court, that he had a tack in certain terms, and possessed in consequence; was not, in a subsequent removing, permitted to defend himself by a plea founded on terms of the task, contradictory to his oath.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Anent the action pursued by the Laird of Innerquharity against John Ogilvie, and his wife, and James their son, anent the removing from certain lands, as they that were lawfully warned to remove therefrom, it was alleged by the said John, his wife, and their son, That they should not remove from the said lands, because they had tacks of the same to run. It was alleged by the said Laird, That he pursued the said John, his wife, and son, before the Sheriff, for the mails and duties of the said lands, conform to a letter of tack made to them by the said Laird, who swore by their great oath in the said Sheriff-court, and now bruik the same by reason of the said tack, because they had sworn, as said is, that they had such a tack. It was alleged by the said John, That he had not such a tack as was libelled by the said Laird; for the tack libelled bore, That the said land was set to the said John, his wife, and eldest son, albeit the tack set to him bore to him, his wife, and heirs male, therefore he had not mansworn that tack; whilk allegeance of the said defender, was repelled by the Lords, in respect of the oath given in the said Sheriff-court calumniously, and ordained them to remove from the said lands, for the cause foresaid. Then it was alleged by the said James, son to the said John, That he was made assignee before these things alleged to the said tack, and therefore should not remove from the said lands; whilk allegeance, in like manner, was repelled, and the said James also decerned to remove for the cause above written.
