[1741] 1 Elchies 443
Subject_1 TACK.
Loud Darnley;
v.
Campbell of Shawfield
1741 ,June 23 .
Case No.No. 5.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The Lords adhered to the Ordinary's interlocutor, finding Shawfield liable only for the tack-duty for his own feu-duty, and that he had the benefit of tacit relocation. I was of the small number that were for altering, because I thought the feu-duty not the subject of a lease or tack, but I did not speak. Arniston, who did not either speak, voted to adhere; and yet I afterwards found he had the same doubt with me, that this was not the subject of a lease, and he voted adhere only because the pursuer's own right was only a lease from Crown, which he thought was now void and null. But on a reclaiming bill, this was remitted to the Ordinary, But, after they found there might be tacit relocation, upon a proof they found there was no place for it here,—28th January 1742.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting