Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In a suspension, Geichen against Walkinshaw, of a decreet of removing, the Lords found a reason relevant founded upon a contract made betwixt the setter, to whom the charger was heir, or behaved himself as heir, by intromission with his heirship goods and gear after his decease, and the suspender, obliging him not to remove the defender from the house libelled, until the time he paid fifty pounds then borrowed from the suspender, conform whereunto the defunct entered the defender in possession, and by virtue thereof she yet continues in possession, and ought not to remove until her money be paid. This was found relevant against the charger, who was offered to be proved heir, or behaving himself as heir to the contractor, as said is ; but is not admitted against a singular successor.
