Reversion of a Redemption - what does it mean?

[Rufous Treecreeper]

From the Protocol Book of Sir Robert Rollock page 37, No. 124 comes the following text:-

"a reversion granted by the late James Auchinlek of that ilk, knight, to the late George Creichtoun of Carnis, knight...for the redemption of the lands of Grevistoun and Gellishauche in the sheriffdom of Peebles, the lands of Carinhill in the sheriffdom of Edinburgh, and an annual-rent of 10 pounds furth of the barony of Strathmonth in the constabulary of Linlithgow..."

I've tried googling for meanings and found the following from 'The Institutions of the Law of Scotland, Deduced from Its Originals and with' etc by James, Vicount of Stair.

So does it mean that James Auchinlek had the land (i.e. the redemption) of George Creichton (maybe for a loan?) but then returned it to him (i.e. the reversion), (when the loan was paid off)?
Can anyone explain it to me in simple english, please? 

Marlene 

[RJ_Paton]

It's an old legal form although some rights were confirmed in an Act of Parliament (Scottish) in 1469 and again in 1617 when it was enacted that such transactions should be recorded in the Sasines

A deed of Reversion was a contract between two parties whereby one  transferred ownership of land(s) to another in return for a wadset (mortgage) with the redemption of the monies to paid on a certain date. (Greens Encyclopedia of Scots Law 1909 Volume 10)

[Skoosh]

A wadset wasn't simply a mortgage but more of a loan or investment whereby a tacksman (leaseholder) with money to spare loaned it to his laird for a fixed term or until the capital became  available to repay the loan.

A "proper wadset" was the best deal, whereby the interest due on the loan exactly matched the rent due to the laird for the tack, the two sums cancelling each other out and until the wadset was redeemed the tacksman held the land free of all rent & commitments were counted as heritors themselves, being liable for maintenance of the kirk etc!

 A "proper wadset" therefore was a cash "quick-fix" but could be disastrous for the landowner & of great benefit to a tacksman who saw it as a step to becoming the landowner himself should the laird default on the repayment.  Lairds living above their means were at great risk from wadsets & much work for lawyers was the result. The land itself was the security for the loan & tacksmen with cash made at the cattle trade etc' were often disinclined to trust a bank.

Skoosh.

[RJ_Paton]

 A "proper wadset" therefore was a cash "quick-fix" but could be disastrous for the landowner & of great benefit to a tacksman who saw it as a step to becoming the landowner himself should the laird default on the repayment.  Lairds living above their means were at great risk from wadsets & much work for lawyers was the result. The land itself was the security for the loan & tacksmen with cash made at the cattle trade etc' were often disinclined to trust a bank.

Skoosh.

Possibly why the alteration in the 17th century to record Wadsets on property in the Sasine records - there is also the legal path of a "Declarator of Redemption" where the repayment is refused.

[Rufous Treecreeper]

Thank you Falkryn and Skoosh    Much appreciated but just to make sure I understand it properly;

Am I correct to say that James Auchinleck loaned George Creichton money and as security he got George's lands as specified - the reversion - later George repaid James the loan amount - the redemption - so George regained control/ownership of his lands?

Marlene (trying to make things crystal clear in the ole noggin  )

[RJ_Paton]

Thank you Falkryn and Skoosh    Much appreciated but just to make sure I understand it properly;

Am I correct to say that James Auchinleck loaned George Creichton money and as security he got George's lands as specified - the reversion - later George repaid James the loan amount - the redemption - so George regained control/ownership of his lands?

Marlene (trying to make things crystal clear in the ole noggin  )

Basically, yes.     One minor point is that the redemption looks like it has taken place after both men had passed on as both are described as "late" .

[Skoosh]

Momamg, should it not be Sir Robert Pollock?

Skoosh.

[Rufous Treecreeper]

Google Books says "Protocol Book of Sir Robert Rollok 1534 to 1552" with no c but definitely R not P.  Also says it's volume 65 of Scottish Record Society.
Sir James died circa 1449 and Sir George in 1457ish if I remember correctly.  One of Sir George's descendants was trying to claim back the land I think in time period above.  Don't think he had any luck!
  thanks for confirming for me