Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Not relevant in a removing to allege infeft before the warning, unless it be said duly infeft, et ab habente potestatem.
Spottiswood, (Removing.) p. 277.*** Durie reports this case:
In a removing pursued by John Stuart against Tenants of Coldinghame, the Lords repelled an exception proponed for the L. of Wedderburn, upon his infeftment of the lands libelled, flowing from his author, upon whom he condescended, by virtue whereof he alleged, He was 20 years in possession of the said lands; which exception the Lords found not sufficient to defend him, albeit clad with so long possession, against this removing, except he also had alleged therewith, that his said author was infeft in the same lands; for he ought to condescend that he was infeft by one having power, otherwise the exception was found could nowise be relevant.
Act, Stuart & Craig.Alt. Hope & Belsbes.Clerk, Gibson.
Durie, p. 335.
