If you found BAILII useful today, could you please make a contribution?

Your donation will help us maintain and extend our databases of legal information. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month donates, 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 >> Home of Wedderburn, v Home of Kimmergham. [1702] Mor 184 (17 February 1702)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1702/Mor0100184-004.html
Cite as: [1702] Mor 184

[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


[1702] Mor 184      

Subject_1 ADJUDICATION and APPRISING.
Subject_2 GENERAL CLAUSE in APPRISING and ADJUDICATION.

Home of Wedderburn,
v.
Home of Kimmergham

Date: 17 February 1702
Case No. No 4.

Teinds found not to be comprehended under a general clause.


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

Home of Wedderburn, having acquired a comprising, led against his estate, by Mr Alexander Spottiswood, he pursues Home of Kimmergham for the teinds of his lands. Alledged, You have no title to my teinds; in so far as your comprising is allenarly of the lands and mill, and makes no mention of the teinds. Answered, It needs not; for teinds, being an inferior right, are carried with the lands; especially, seeing the comprising bears all right, interest, and claim of right, petitory, or possessory: And Stair observes, That, on the 27th of February 1672, Scot against Muirhead, (See Teinds) in a voluntary sale, where the disposition bore only the lands, yet the Lords extended it to the teinds also. Replied, That there were sundry specialties in this case; for he was burdened with L. 30 of teind-duty to the minister; and yet the Lords allowed the defender to be reponed, he repaying the price, cum omni causa. Dirleton likewise states this question, voce Teinds; but leaves it undecided. The Lords found this comprising did not extend to the teinds, nor comprehend the same, under the general denomination of lands, et omne jus, &c.; which is but an extension of style, ampliating the right to the lands, and goes no farther.

Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 11. Fountainhall, v. 2. p. 147.

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/1702/Mor0100184-004.html