Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In a double poinding at the instance of the tenants of East-Houses contra Hepburn and others, the relict of an husband, who died in September, pursuing for the duties of her terce, whereto she was kenned, the Lords found, That she had right to her terce of that term preceding Martinmas, before the which the husband died, (the husband having deceased in September before, as said is); and the terce was of an annual-rent, wherein the husband died infeft; the terce of the which term was found due to the relict, albeit the husband died before the Martinmas, and so before the expiring of that term whereof the annual-rent was acclaimed; and albeit the relict was not served to her terce sundry terms after her husband’s decease, yet the same was drawn back to the time of his decease. Here the question was betwixt the heir and the tercer; but if the executor had acclaimed the term, there might have some question been moved with her; albeit I think she would have been preferred to the executor, seeing the heir had rather right to that term than the executor.
