Whether Reasons of Suspension must be instantly verified?
L Johnston v. His Tenants
Date: 18 December 1628 Case No. No. 29.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The L. Johnston having recovered decreet against the tenants, to remove from the lands possessed by them, so far as pertained to him, in absence of the defenders, and they suspending, that they bruiked that part pertaining to him with the rest of the same lands, pertaining heritably to the Viscount Drumlanrig and Lord Maxwell pro indiviso, so that there being three heritors, portioners of the lands undivided, they knew not the pursuer's part from the rest, that they might remove therefrom; this reason was rejected, and the letters found orderly proceeded, in respect of the decreet standing, which could not be taken away by suspension, where there behoved to be assignation of terms to prove; but was reserved to be tried by way of reduction.
Act. Cunninghame.Clerk, Scott.
Fol. Dic. v. 2. p 415. Durie, p. 411.*** Auchinleck reports this case:
Sometimes a reason of suspension against a decreet of removing consisting in facto, is not received by the Lords by way of suspension, as that the lands are bruiked pro indiviso.
