|Archibald Cooper v. Sir William Maxwell
||In this case, the parties disputed the boundaries of tack that included a lime-work. Archibald Cooper alleged that Sir William Maxwell of Calderwood had encroached on his tack, and therefore sought to have Maxwell's work enjoined.
|Inglis v. Gray
||Tack, Title to Pursue
||This case was about defender Walter Gray’s tack on the estate of Langwell. Shortly after Walter agreed to the tack, his brother William purchased Langwell. William granted bonds over the estate to Hugh Inglis and John Cartier as security for certain debts. Later, Inglis and Carter initiated court proceedings involving the property, which was sequestered under the supervision of a factor. Inglis also sought to void Walter’s tack or have Walter removed from the estate. Inglis alleged that Walter’s rent was far below the value of the property as stated on a rent roll that Walter had endorsed. Inglis also claimed that the tack would expire soon and that Walter was in arrears on his rent. Walter objected that Inglis’s security right, unlike a full property right, did not entitle him to challenge the tack or remove a tenant; when Inglis attempted to add the factor as a pursuer, Walter argued that this was a procedural irregularity. Walter also argued that William had granted him a new lease and that he was not in arrears on rent.
|Mitchell v. Kerr and Shearer
||Locus Poenitentiae, Tack
||In 1772, David Kerr and John Shearer took out a 17-year sub-tack of Long-bank Park from Robert Mitchell. They had an assignation written up, which was signed by the land's superior but not by Mitchell. In December of 1776 they renounced their tack, and a year later Mitchell brought action against Kerr and Shearer, asking that they be compelled to resume possession. The defenders argued before Lord Alva that the tack had merely been verbal, and was therefore binding for only a year. Robert Mitchell, the pursuer, argued in turn that the tack was not verbal, having been formalized in an assignation signed by the farm's superior. Furthermore, Mitchell argued that the defenders had taken scourging crops on the land, and "therefore res non erat integra" -- in other words, their intent to withdraw from the contract had been cut off by this impoverishment of the land. Lord Alva found the letters orderly proceeded, but the Court suspended the letters without qualification, and Mitchell then petitioned for review. He asked whether it was appropriate that the defenders "after having thus exhausted and deteriorated the land, can now desert the possession, after having put in their pockets the large profits they reaped, by taking these scourging crops off the best part of the ground?” The defenders, on the other hand, argued that contrary to Mitchell's claims, they had undergone great trouble and expense in clearing the land, which had been overrun with "broom, whins, thorns, briers, and sog." They asserted that the land was in better condition upon their renunciation of it than it had been when they first took possession.
|Robertson v. Gray
||In this case, the trustees for the creditors of Richard Cameron asked the court to void a tack granted by Cameron to his brother-in-law Andrew Gray. The trustees alleged that Cameron had granted the tack while insolvent, and that he had agreed to a price that was lower than the land’s market value. Andrew Gray, the tacksman, disputed these points. He further argued that the tack was necessary because Cameron had planned to go to Virginia. Case documents include a proof containing numerous depositions.
|Sir William Elliot v. George Currie
||George Currie sought to sublet a small lime quarry that he held in tack. His landlord, Sir William Elliot, Baronet of Stobs, refused to consent to the sublet unless Currie would give him 250 bushels of lime per year. Sir William petitioned the Sheriff of Roxburghshire for an order prohibiting Currie from subletting the lime quarry, which the Sheriff issued. Currie petitioned the Court of Session for relief. According to marginalia on the case document, this petition was refused without answers.