BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Scot v Muirhead. [1672] Mor 15637 (27 February 1672) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1672/Mor3615638-031.html Cite as: [1672] Mor 15637 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
[1672] Mor 15637
Subject_1 TEINDS.
Subject_2 SECT. I. Nature and Effect of this Right.
Date: Scot
v.
Muirhead
27 February 1672
Case No.No. 31.
Teinds were found to be carried by a disposition of lands which contained an assignation to the tacks of the tenants who paid a joint duty for stock and teind.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Mr. John Muirhead having sold certain lands to Walter Scot and his son, they pursue declarator, that thereby they have right to the teinds of the said lands, in so far as the disponer had right, because, by the disposition, though there be no express mention of the teinds, yet the same is implied, in so far as they are assigned to the tenants' tacks without reservation, and they are burdened with £.30 of teind to the Minister, and all subsequent augmentations, and the tenants pay a joint duty, both for stock and teind, and they gave more than twenty years purchase for the rental, comprehending both stock and teind. It was answered, That teinds being distinct rights from lands, the same cannot be conveyed with the lands, unless they be expressed, and not by presumptions or inferences.
The Lords having ordained the communers, writers, and witnesses in the disposition to be examined ex officio, they found little clearness thereby; but, by the tenor of the disposition, they found, that the pursuer had right to the teinds; but, in regard that the conception was so unclear, they allowed the defender to be reponed, refunding the price cum omni causa, except the composition to the superior.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting