Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In an action of spuilzie betwixt Mr. James Ross and Blair, the Lords sustained an action of spuilzie founded upon tack, which was alleged to want a duty; because albeit it bore a yearly duty, yet thereby the setter had discharged that duty for ever to the tacksman; seeing he allowed it to him for satisfaction of his bairns part of gear, addebted by him to the said tacksman; which the defender alleged to be alike as if it had not a duty therein inserted; which was repelled; for the Lords found, that this defender had no competent interest to propone this; and if the tacksman were pursued for the tack-duty by any who was singular successor to him who set the tack, that clause would not liberate the tacksman at the hands of that singular successor, albeit it might militate against the setter and his heirs.
Clerk, Gibson.
Fol. Dic. v. 2. p. 418. Durie, p. 266.*** Auchinleck reports this case:
Mr. John Ross, assignee to the tack of teind-sheaves, set to Mr. James his father by umquhile John Ross, father to the said Mr. James, pursues William Blair for spuilzie of the said teind-sheaves. It is excepted, that the tack set to Mr. James is locatio sine mercede, in so far as the 22 merks are ordained to be paid for the duty of the tack are in that same tack discharged to him for his bairns part of gear. The Lords sustain the tack.
