If you found BAILII useful today, could you please make a contribution?
Your donation will help us maintain and extend our databases of legal information. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month donates, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In a removing, Murdiston against his Tenants, a tack being set to the defender for certain years, the last whereof expired at the term of Martinmas, the Lords sustained the warning made to the tacksman to remove, and this action upon that warning, albeit the warning preceded the feast of Whitsunday before that Martinmas, at which term the tack expired, so that at the term when the warning was made, the tack was standing un-runout; notwithstanding whereof, the warning was allowed, seeing, albeit it was made before the Whitsunday, and before the out-running of the tack, yet it was made to remove at the Martinmas, and the action was not intented while Martinmas was past, for otherwise the tacksman would have bruiked a year longer than the tack lasted.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 337. Durie, p. 409.*** Spottiswood reports this case:
Thomas Inglis of Murdeston having made warning to his Tenants before Whitsunday 1628, pursued a removing upon it. Alleged by one of the defenders, That the time of the warning he had tacks to run, which did not expire till Martinmas following, and therefore he ought not to be decerned to remove till be were of new warned. The Lords sustained the warning notwithstanding of this allegeance, because the action was not intented till after Martinmas, at which time the defender's tack was expired.
Spottiswood, (Removing.) p. 286.*** Auchinleck reports the same case:
A warning may be made before Whitsunday to a tenant to remove at Martinmas thereafter, if the tenant's tack end at Martinmas.
