Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In an action of succeeding in the vice pursued by Margaret Watson, relict of John Tweedy, skinner, against John Law, tailor, as succeeding in the vice of William Craig, against whom decreet was given, at the instance of Richard Storie, for ejecting him furth of certain lands in Restalrig, it was alleged by the defender, that he ought to be assoilzied from restitution of the said pursuer, to said lands, because decreet of removing was given at the instance of the Goodman of Westfield, in anno 1610, decerning the said Richard Storie to remove frae the said lands, and therefore, &c. To the which it was answered, That the allegeance was nowise relevant, 1mo, Because the defender derives no right from Westfield; 2do, By the decreet, whereby Craig is decerned to re-enter the said Richard Storie to the possession of these lands, et sic spoliatus ante omnia est restituendus; 3tio, Long after the date of the said removing, the decreet of ejection is given in anno 1607, and so the said defence being competent ante sententiam, and omitted, cannot now take away the sentence standing. To the which it was answered, 1mo, That John Law, tailor, has right from William Craig, which William Craig has right from Westfield. As to the other two, the defender's removing takes away omne jus and possession, that was competent to Richard Storie, and works as meikle as if he were entered; for if he had been entered, or in possession, all the time, he would have been violent possessor; and last, this exception was not competent to elide the ejection which was libelled in anno 1597; and the decreet of ejection being given, the same cannot prejudge the said John Law, tailor, defender. The Lords, by interlocutor, found the exception relevant to purge the ejection, not only for the re-possession to the lands, but also for eliding of the violent profits of all the years, from the warning made to the said Richard Storie.
