Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In a removing, a comprising, and charges against the superior thereon, to receive the compriser, with a protestation against the superior, because of the suspension raised by him of these charges, was not sustained without sasine, to produce removing from the lands comprised, albeit the warning and process of removing were only pursued by the compriser against the debtor allenarly, against whom the comprising was deduced; and this allegeance, proponed by him, was found sufficient, seeing a removing was found, could not be pursued by a compriser against the debtor without a sasine.
Act. Lawtie.Alt. ————Clerk, Gibson.
Durie, p. 428.*** Auchinleck reports this case:
Anne Galloway pursues removing against Turnbull of Bogmiln, as having comprised the said land from him, and charged the Lord Coupar, as superior to enter him who had suspended the charge. The defender alleged, He could not remove, because the pursuer was not infeft. It was replied by the pursuer, That his diligence was equivalent to sasine, especially against him whose lands were comprised for his own debt. The Lords found the exception relevant notwithstanding of the reply.
Auchinleck, MS. p. 194.
*** Spottiswood's report of this case is at the end of his report of Lockhart against Tenants, No 16. p. 13790.
