Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In an action betwixt Ley and Bar, for payment of the mails and duties of lands to Ley, as having the right of the ward of him, who held the said lands ward of the Prince; the Lords found, that a tack in the defender's person, clad with possession, was enough to exclude the pursuer for any greater duty acclaimed for the land, than the duty contained in the tack, for all the years preceding the date of that summons; the defender never being interrupted in the tack foresaid, by a pursuit before the date of the summons; and sicklike they found an infeftment made by that same person, by whose decease the ward fell to the same excipient, for a certain feu-duty therein contained, relevant to exclude the pursuit, for any greater duty than that which was contained in the said feu-infeftment, for the said years preceding the summons, there being no interruption ut supra, and would not receive the reply in this place, upon the nullity of the said feu, founded upon the act of Parliament 1606, anent the not consent of the superior thereto, in respect of the possession had conform bona fide, which was sustained for the years foresaid, wherefore no interruption was made. Thereafter the pursuer took up this process by warrant of the Lords, and the interlocutor foresaid was refused to be extracted, although the defender urged, that he ought to have the extract of the same, which was refused. See Ward.
Act. Stuart & Mouat.Alt. Hope & Nicolson.Clerk, Gibson.
Fol. Dic. v. 2. p. 426. Durie, p. 290.
