Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In an original feu-charter, though woods were disponed along with the lands, there was this remarkable restriction laid upon the vassal, “That it shall not be leisom for him or his heirs to cut, sell, or give away, any of the trees, but allenarly, for their own particular use and their tenants;” but this clause did not enter the sasine. The superior afterwards, by a personal deed, discharged the said restriction. The question occurred, If this discharge was good against a singular successor in the superiority? The singular successor pleaded, That the woods here were truly reserved, and nothing given to the vassal but the usus, and that a discharge could not transfer the superiority, or any of its accessories. The vassal pleaded, That he was infeft in the lands and woods, and that the clause was no other than a restriction on his property, calculated that he might not interfere with his superior in the sale of his woods, to lower the price, by overstocking the market, and that restrictions may be discharged by any personal deed. The Lords found the discharge effectual against the singular successor.
