A defender was allowed to call his warrant in a spuilzie of teind, where he had a tack, and was in possession.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In Sir John Greenwalls' cause, for spuilzie of his teind sheaves, against James Lawson of Humbie, the Lords decerned a day to the said James to call his warrant from Mr. George Hay, factor to Mr. Robert Wauchope, of the said vicarage, then pertaining to the said Mr. Robert, and now to the said Sir John, by resignation made thereof in favours of him by the said Mr. Robert; because the said James was in possession of the said teind-sheaves by virtue of tack made to him by the said Mr. George, as factor foresaid, and whereof were yet certain years to run; and the said Mr. George obliged him to warrant the said teind-sheaves to the said James, for the years contained in the libel; and therefore gave him a day to call his said warrant; albeit Mr. Andrew Blackstock, procurator for the said Sir John, alleged, that wrong had no warrant, and therefore no day should be given to the said James to the effect foresaid: Nevertheless the Lords decerned as said is; and that of the practicque, whenever a man is in possession cum titulo for terms to run, and another call him for wrong, in occupying that gear or land, reus debet habere diem ad verandum warrantum suum, for that it is not kend for wrong or spuilzie; and the man that I allege my warrant may have good defences, unknown unto me.
