“Subject_Teinds.— Heritors who had tacks of their teinds, the term of which had expired, but who were still possessing by tacit relocation, held to be localled upon alongst with heritors having curren…”
You're reading the free summary of Hope v Common-Agent of Cupar [1834] CA 13_106b (28 November 1834). Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.