Tacit relocation of a tack of teinds found to support the possession for more years than the person who had granted the tack could have validly let them.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The Earl of Roxburgh pursues the heritors for the teind, from 1648 till 1662, as he who had right during that time, by the act of Parliament 1649, establishing the right of the teinds in the patron, in lieu of their patronage, and also as he who had tack thereof, and had since possessed by tacit relocation. The defender alleged, as to the first title, that the Parliament 1649 was not only annulled, but declared void ab initio, as a meeting without any authority. As to the tacit relocation, it could not extend any further than so many years as the beneficed person could set. It was answered for the Earl, That the rescissory act could not prejudge him, as to any thing anterior to its date, unless it had borne expressly to annul as to by-gones.
The Lords found the libel and reply relevant, as to by-gones before the act, albeit there be no salvo in that act, as there is in the rescissory acts of the remanent Parliaments; and found that the pursuer had right, per tacitam relocationem, till he was interrupted, even for years which the beneficed person could not validly set, as a life-renter's tack will be valid against the fee, per tacitam relocationem,after her death, though she could grant no tack validly after her death.
