Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR JOHN LAUDER OF FOUNTAINHALL.
William Gordon v. Thomson and Gordon
Date: 29 December 1693
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Crocerig reported William Gordon, in Buchlaw, against Thomson, and Gordon his assignee. The Lords considered the tack was null, wanting a tackduty; and though the bonds did not relate to the tack, yet, being of the same date, and an obligement for victual, it was for the duty of the lands set in the tack; and that the taking a bond apart, presumed that he was to pay that entirely as a neat sum, and not to have any retention on the account of cess and public burdens; and, therefore, they found it relevant to be proven by the writer and witnesses of the bond, that it was communed at the time, that he should pay the cess; seeing, an ease of the rent was given him for that reason. Some were for trying the custom of that country; because, in some shires, the tenant is bound to relieve the master of the public burdens. But the plurality thought the other the shortest method.
