An obligation to receive parties as tenants as long as they could pay the rent, found to be an indefinite endurance, and so ineffectual.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Sir John Hamilton pursuing a removing against some tenants of Bargenie, wherein one compearing, and alleging, that there were tacks set of the lands to his father and mother, during their life-times, in the which tack the setter obliged him to receive the bairns to be procreated betwixt the tacksmen after their deceases, kindly tenants to him, in the said room. so long as they were able to pay the duty contained in the tack; in respect of the which clause, the eldest son of the tacksman alleged, that he had sufficient right to bruik, at least during his life-time, seeing he had ever paid, and was content to find security to pay, the duty of the tack. The Lords found the clause foresaid could give no right to bruik longer than warning was made, because it was neither tack nor rental; and it had no special time therein limited, for the which it should endure; and found it ought not to maintain the defender for his life-time, albeit he restricted the space to his life-time, and though the clause was conceived in favours of the bairns indefinite, and not in favours of any special person, named in the writ, but uncertain; and therefore repelled the allegeance; but here a singular successor pursued.
Act. Hope.Alt. Miller.Clerk,Gibson.
Fol. Dic. v. 2. p. 418. Durie, p. 186.
