Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In an action of spuilzie of teinds pursued by Mr. William Douglas, as prebendary and titular of the teinds, the Lords found, that the defender, being sub-tacksman to one who had a tack standing unexpired the year of the spuilzie libelled, albeit the sub-tack was expired before, and bruiking after the years of that expired sub-tack per tacitam relocationem, could not be pursued for spuilzie, the said principal tack being that year unexpired, as said is; albeit the said principal tacksman was deceased, and that none compeared for his heir, or any others who might claim right to the said tack, to clothe themselves with the right of the same; and therefore it was answered, that it was jus tertii, which could not defend the excipient, who had no standing right in his own person; notwithstanding whereof the exception was sustained.
