Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In a removing, a tack set by one who was infeft in lands was sustained to produce action of removing at the tacksman's instance, albeit it bore not a clause therein of power to in-put and out-put tenants, the tacksman proving, that the setter was heritor of the lands, especially seeing the defenders had no right to the lands; which was so found, albeit some were of opinion, that such tacks were only obligations, whereby the setter might be compelled to enter the tacksman in possession of the land, but were not real securities, of force to produce removing, and thereby to make warning, being of the nature of personal securities; but most were of another judgment, there being no tack or right in the proponer's person; and found ut supra.
Alt. Nicolson.Clerk, Gibson.
Fol. Dic. V. 2. P. 421. Durie, p. 436.*** Spottiswood reports this case:
In a removing pursued by Gallashiels, younger, against Sir William M'Dowgal, the Lords sustained the action at the pursuer's instance, he having only a tack to the lands from which he craved the defender to be removed, which was neither clothed with possession, nor yet had he power, by virtue of his tack, to remove tenants.
