Whether the Reverser's possession validates Redeemable Rights, held Base.
La Collington v. Ja Haswell.
Date: 11 July 1628 Case No. No 50.
The heritor's possession by a back-tack, was found to validate a base infeftment, where payment of the back-tack duly had been obtained.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In a removing, the Lady Collington cnntra Ja. Haswell, the pursuer being infeft by Sir John Ker in the lands libelled, and having set back to him, a tack for a duty, containing clauses irritant, the said Sir John remaining in possession, and having paid diverse years, the duty of the back-tack to the pursuer; thereafter he dispones a part of the lands to the defender, who acquires, and continues seven years in real possession of the lands; here both pursuer and defender's infeftments were base; and the defender, in respect of his right, albeit posterior, yet being many years clad with real Possession, which he alleged, gave him preference to the pursuer's right, which was also base, and never clad with real possession as the excipient's was, conform to the 105th act, 7th Par. Ja. V.: who alleged that he could not be removed so summarly: Which allegeance was repelled, in respect of the pursuer's prior right, which they found clad with real possession, by setting of the back-tack, and receiving the duty thereof from his tacksman; neither was it respected, what the defender alleged; that the heritor, who was author of both, keeping and retaining still the real possession of the land; he was in optima fide, to take a right from him, whom he knew to be heritor, and was actual possessor of the ground; and the back-tack, set again by the pursuer to this author, could not be respected, and allowed as possession to the pursuer, as if he had set a tack thereof to a third person, which was repelled.
Act. ——.Alt. Belshes.Clerk, Gibson.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 90. Durie, p. 387.
