Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
One having pursued another for the duty of certain lands set to the defender by the pursuer in tack, for the space of five years, it was alleged by the defender, That he possessed not the room that year he was pursued for, but had renounced his tack half a year before, which he might lawfully do, there having no writ intervened between the parties, but the tack being only verbal. Yet because he had possessed three years of the five, the Lords found he could not renounce for the other two years at his pleasure.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 560. Spottiswood, (Tacks and Assedations.) p. 327.*** Auchinleck reports this case:
1629. January 14.—A Tenant having taken a tack five years, by word, and having bruiked the land for the space of three years, renounces his tack debito tempore to his master, whilk he will not accept, but pursues for the duty of his tack. The tenant alleged he might renounce, likeas he renounced, seeing the tack was but verbal. The Lords found he behoved to keep out his tack, in respect the pursuer referred to the tacksman's oath, that he took the tack for five years, and had bruiked the same for three years.
