The production by tenants of a merchant's receipts for three consecutive years rents, delivered by order of their landlord, found not to import a discharge of a dectee for the rents of preceding years.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The Master of Corstorphine having married the relict of Mr Alexander Keith, to whom she was executrix, and thereby pursuing for certain rests of the farms of the lands of addebted by the tenants, possessors thereof, of the crops 1623, 1624, and 1625, for the which rests the said umquhile Mr Alexander had obtained sentence in his own Baron-court against them, upon their own confession, containing the special quantities of the same, and whereto his said spouse had right as executrix to him; and the tenants representing the danger of this pursuit, if the same should have way, that poor tenants, who take not acquittances when they pay their Masters farms and duties to them, may be in, the same neither being sought by their Master in his own lifetime, he living ten years after that pursuit and sentence, and never challenging them for payment, they nevertheless being many years still his tenants, and possessors of the same lands, likeas they offered them to prove that, by the space of three years together immediately subsequent to these years for which they are now pursued, they made payment of the three last years next following of the said farms to the merchants to whom their said umquhile Master sold the farms of the lands, which is alike as if they had paid himself, this being done at his command, and in law trium annorum cohærentium apochæ præsumunt solutionem præteritorum; and they produced sundry tickets of these three last years, subscribed by the merchants, bearing receipt of the victual, as the same was delivered at ilk several time; which, after computation of the several receipts, they alleged would make appear that all these three years were completely paid; the Lords repelled this exception, in respect of the foresaid decreet obtained for the rests now acclaimed, and found, That the merchants tickets could not take away the same, in respect it was not shown that the Masters self had granted three several discharges of the three immediate years next subsequent to the years controverted, without which the ground in law holds not; for the Master might have directed the tenants to answer the merchant of the rests addebted by them, and the merchants tickets, albeit given in the years subsequent to the years acclaimed, did import nothing to the contrary; and therefore the exception was repelled.
Act. M'Gill.Alt. ——Clerk, Gibson.
Fol. Dic. v. 2. p. 137. Durie, p. 807.
