jSo^. Review of Mr Bellas Treatife on Leafes. ^^ 



the Murrays, on the eftate of Ormifton, who had obtained a fort 

 of perpetual leafe from Mr Cockburn of OrniiRon. Mr Wight's 

 tack was renewable every term of nineteen years for ever j and 

 Lord Hopctonn, the purchafer of the ellate of Ormiflon, tried 

 <-'to let it allde, becaule it had no definite termination. The Court 

 of SeOion found this leafe, however, could not be reduced. Mr 

 Bell obferves, that in the decifion in this cafe, * the Court fceni- 

 ed to fay, in exprefs terms, that had Lord Hopetoun been a pur- 

 chafer, unalied^ed by any fuch obligation as occurred here, he 

 would not have been bound to give effect to the leafe ; the deci- 

 fion proceeding folely on the circumftance of his having barred 

 himfelf from reducing any leafe that might infer recourfe againft 

 the feller. ' 



The Third Chapter contains the form of a leafe, with many 

 apt obfervations upon it. On this head, a fomewhat curious que- 

 (lion is treated of, viz. Whether a tenant, who is reftricled by 

 his leafe from afllgning it, or granting a fubtack, has in any cafe 

 the power of appointing a manager of his farm. 



* Still it remains (Mr Bell obferves) to be confidered, before leaving 

 this fubjeCl of the deftination of the leafe, whether, if afTignees and 

 fubtenants are both excluded, it be in the power of the tenant, or his 

 creditors, to poffefs the farm, under a manager for behoof of thofe 

 having intereft. 



* This is certainly a moil equitable power, now that large capitals 

 are employed in famiing : for how unjuil were it, that a tenant, who 

 may have contrafted the debts that opprefs him in improving the farm, 

 and which improvements ai'e capable of extricating him from his diffi- 

 culties, fliould, in the event of any fudden misfortune, be deprived of 

 thofe means of relief, on which both he and his creditors had a title to 

 rely ? A leafe, which fhould exclude fuch a power of mananagement, 

 without providing fome other plan, by which full juftice might be done 

 to the tenant, would be highly fraudulent. 



* This plan is faid to have been devifed by the late Lord Covington 

 when at the Bar, and to have been followed, under his directions, in a 

 cafe which came afterwards to receive the decifion of the Court. That 

 was the cafe of Jamiefon Durham i'. Henderfon and Livingfton, 23d 

 January 1773. In this cafe, the Mains of Duntarvie were let to Li- 

 vingfton, his heirs and fucceffors, excluding affignees and fubtenants. 

 In the 1770, the crop and ftocking was poinded for debt ; and the cre» 

 ditors having confulted Mr Lockhart as to the meafurea which they 

 ought to follow, he advifed them to appoint a faclor or manager over 

 the farm. In place of this, however, the tenant gave a right to Hen- 

 derfon, that he might be enabled to make out the engagements he liad 

 come under to his creditors, and, his advances being repaid, the right 

 was to be at an end. The Court decerned in a removing againft the 

 ^nant ; and thi-s is ?J1 that appears in the Faculty Colledion. But the 



H h h i ' j^iatter 



