A Lady kenned to her terce of lands, in which her husband was, infeft, redeemable, was found to continue to have right, although the sums had been charged for by her husband, but no redemption nor renunciation had followed. But she was afterwards disappointed in consequence of a renunciation by the tutors of the husband's heir.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Katharine Veitch being served heir and kenned to a terce of some lands, wherein her umquhile husband died infeft redeemable, pursues for the duties of the said lands, intromitted with by Veitch of Dawick, divers years since the death of her husband. And the defenders alleging, that before the pursuer's husband's decease, the sums whereupon the lands were redeemable, were charged for to be paid in the defunct's lifetime, so that the sums were thereby moveable, which makes the terce of the lands to cease; this allegeance was repelled, because no redemption followed, nor renunciation, nor other deed upon that charge, and the defunct died infeft, and undenuded. And the defender duplying, that after the defunct's decease, his son and his tutors renounced that right of wadset; and the pursuer answering, that that renunciation done by his tutors, ought not to be respected, not being done by the father in his lifetime, who made the money moveable; the Lords found the renunciation made by the tutors and minor relevant to elide this pursuit, to exclude the tercer, seeing the wadset was redeemable, and the renunciation made was sustained, being dependent upon a preceding necessary ground of reversion, albeit there was no declarator of redemption; but because the pursuer alleged collusion done betwixt the tutors to her prejudice, the matter was ordained to be further heard.
Clerk, Gibson.
Fol. Dic. v. 2. p. 353. Durie, p. 894.
