Found in conformity with Thomson against Reid, No. 114. p. 15239.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
There was a tack of some tenements in Edinburgh granted to Peacock to this effect, that for security of 1,000 merks due to Peacock, the tenement was set for seven years, for payment of four pennies yearly, the tacksman giving discharges yearly of the annual-rent, so long as he remained in possession of the tenement; whereupon he pursues declarator against certain apprisers of the tenement, for declaring that this tack was a valid right against singular successors till the money were paid.
The Lords found that the tack was only valid for seven years, and not for the subsequent years.
Fol. Dic. v. 2. p. 423. Stair, v. 2. p. 274.*** Gosford reports this case:
In a declarator at George Peacock's instance against John Lawder, as compriser of a tenement from Alexander Eleis, to hear and see it found and declared, that he had a tack of the tenement prior to the comprising, and by virtue thereof in possession; in which tack he had right to the mails and duties by the space of seven years, and thereafter was obliged to accept of the rent of the tenement in satisfaction of the annual-rent due to him by Eleis; whereupon he concluded, that he being obliged as said is, it was equivalent as if the tack had been, that it should continue ay and until he was paid of his principal sum, and so ought to be preferred to the compriser, having a prior real right clad with a possession. It was answered, That the tack being expressly for seven years only, which were long since past, and albeit it could be interpreted of the nature of a tack, yet having no special issue, it was null, and could not prejudge a singular successor, as hath been found by many several decisions both of old and of late. The Lords did find, that the tack whereupon declarator was founded being expired after seven years, and the subsequent clause bearing no continuation of the former tack, but a personal obligement to accept of the mails of the tenement in satisfaction of the annual-rent, could not prejudge a singular successor; as likewise, if it had been a continuation of the tack without a certain issue, that it was null, and could not defend against an expired comprising, conform to the many practiques alleged upon.
