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!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Scottish Court of Session Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> James Lands v James Douglass and Robert Geddes. [1629] 1 Brn 173 (29 July 1629)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1629/Brn010173-0396.html

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


[1629] 1 Brn 173      

Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION reported by SIR ROBERT SPOTISWOODE OF PENTLAND.
Subject_2 Such of the following Decision as are of a Date prior to about the year 1620, must have been taken by Spotiswoode from some of the more early Reporters. The Cases which immediately follow have no Date affixed to them by Spotiswoode.

James Lands
v.
James Douglass and Robert Geddes

Date: 29 July 1629

Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy

James Lands, as father and administrator of the 1aw to his son Robert, heritable proprietor of a tenement in Edinburgh, sets, in tack and assedation, the same tenement to his brother, John Lands, for seven years, for the yearly payment, by him, of 675 merks. James Lands, being addebted in certain sums to James Douglass and Robert Geddes, makes assignation to them of the same tack-duty, aye and while they were paid: Upon which assignation they charge John Lands for payment of his tack-duty, who suspended upon this reason, That James, as tutor, &c. could not assign the tack-duty for payment of his own proper debts. Answered, As he had power to set the tack, being administrator to his son, so he might assign the duty. 2do. This allegeance was not competent to the defender, who was obliged to pay to the cedent, and consequently to his assignee; and as James, if he had received payment of the tack-duty, might have given it to his creditors, so he might assign it. The Lords found the assignation null.

Page 20.

The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting     


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1629/Brn010173-0396.html