Whether a proprietor is bound by a general clause of warrandice to relieve his tenant of a thirlage?
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Cranston let to Syminton a dwelling house, with a malt-barn, kiln, &c. situated within the precincts of the Abbey of Holyroodhouse, warranting his possession against “any stop or impediment whatsoever;” but no mention of any thirlage was made in the lease. After he had possessed some years, however, a claim for multures was made on the tenant by the proprietor of the mills of the Barony of Broughton, the premises making part of the Barony, and being thirled to its mill.
Symington then sued Cranston in an action of relief, founded on the clause of warrandice in the tack, and on an allegation of his total ignorance of the existence of the thirlage, while that fact must have been well known to his landlord.
The Court, however, found, That the landlord was not bound to relieve the tenant of the thirlage; and therefore “Assoilzied the defender.”
Act. G. Ferguson.Alt. Wight.Clerk, Campbell.
Fac. Coll. No. 100. p. 192.
