Subject_1 GENERAL DISCHARGES and RENUNCIATIONS. Subject_2 SECT. IV.
Whether General Discharges comprehend rights of reversion; back-tacks; actions of improbation.
Keir v. Burn
Date: 21 January 1669 Case No. No 19.
A discharge by the granter of a wadset, of all sums for all lands, was found not to take away the reversion, unless it were special; but that it comprehended all intromissions with the duties of the lands wadset.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Neil Keir having wadset a tenement in Stirling to one Paton, who disponed his right to one Henderson, and Henderson transferred the same to Alexander Burn, with the burden of the reversion contained in the first wadset; wherein there being a back-tack for payment of the annualrent of the money lent upon the wadset, with a clause irritant in case of not payment, the said Alexander Burn did declare the back-tack to be void and null. This decreet being quarrelled by reduction and declarator at the instance of Keir's heir, it was alleged, That the pursuer had granted a discharge to Henderson, who was Burn's author, of all debts and sums of money he could claim, and of all satisfaction he could crave, for all lands and tenements which pertained to his father, and where-unto he had right, and for all kindness, title, or interest which he had thereto; which discharge being jus superveniens auctoris, did accresce to Burn.——The Lords found, That the discharge being of the terms foresaid, could not extend to the reversion, wherewith Burn's right was burdened, not being relative to the reversion; and that it did only extend to the whole duties of the lands intromitted With before the date of the discharge.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 342. Gosford, MS. No 90. p. 32.
