Elizabeth Taylor v. Sir William Maxwell of Sprinkell
Date: 28 November 1728 Case No. No. 193.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
A tenant, who had a tack for many years to run, becoming bankrupt, deserted his possession, and left the country. The master thereupon apprehended possession brevi manu, without using any legal order. The tenant returning before the expiration of the tack, insisted in an action against her master for re-possession, contending, That the tack was still a subsisting deed, since the master had never insisted in a declarator of any of the irritancies incurred by forsaking the possession, and neglecting to pay the tack-duty. Answered, Unumquodque dissolvitur codem modoquo colligatum fuit: The pursuer, by deserting her possession, had shown her animus of throwing up the tack, the defender showed the same animus by apprehending the possession. The Lords found, That the pursuer's relinquishing the possession, and not claiming the same for several years, is relevant to exclude her from being re-possessed. See Appendix.
