Legal Irritancy upon assigning or subsetting. - Rental Rights. - Whether Marriage be such an Assignation as to infer Irritancy?
Hamilton v. Boyd
Date: 23 February 1610 Case No. No 20.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
He that has a rental of lands, and dispones the same in hail or in part, or makes subtacksmen thereof, amits so much of the rental as he assigns, or sets subtack of.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 484. Haddington, MS. No. 1816.*** Kerse reports this case.
In an action of removing, pursued at the instance of John Hamilton against Boyd, it was alleged for Boyd, That he could not be removed, because he had rental set to him during all the days of his lifetime. To the which it was answered, That he had tint his rental, in so far as he had made assignation thereof to a third person; at least he had set the tack of the said lands to subtenants. In respect of the which answer, the allegeance was repelled; and it was found, that the rental fell not only by the assignation, but also by the subtacks made of the said lands in hail, if there were tacks set of the hail; and in part, in so far as the same was set in tack.
This was decided of before, betwixt my Lord Douglas and Mr Patrick Walkinshaw, Minister.
