Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Drummond of Carlowrie against Sir John Dalrymple, anent the tack of the teinds of Kirkliston parish: (The President, and his son Mr. James the clerk, and Mr. Rodorick M'Kenzie the clerk, on his father-in-law the Archbishop of St. Andrews' interest, who had set this new tack to Carlowrie, being removed,) “the Lords nemine contradicente found the old tack set for three life-rents, and three nineteen years to Dundas of Newliston, because generally they lived to a great age,” bearing these words, ‘to Newliston and his heirs entering and succeeding,’ “could not be conveyed by a voluntary right to assignees, but might legally be conveyed and affected by apprising or adjudication, at the instance either of the apparent heir, or of singular successors?”
1681. January 22.—In the cause Sir John Dalrymple, and George Young his assignee, (16th November, 1680,) “the Lords found in vicarage teinds, such as calves, lambs, &c. where they are fewer than ten and above five, because a half lamb cannot be paid salva rei substantia, and without destruction of the animal, that the value of the half succedit loco rei as surrogatum, and is due.” See the same decision, 19th January, 1611, Baillie, (See Appendix.) Sir G. Lockhart contended it was downright nonsense, and contrary to law, to decern for the value, where ipsa corpora sine rei interitu could not be paid, and that nothing was due in that case at all.
Fol. Dic. v. 2. p. 439.
Fountainhall, v. 1. p. 115, 127.
