Warning, in what Cases necessary. - How to be executed.
Ramsay v. L Conheath.
Date: 18 December 1630 Case No. No 64.
A summary removing from a manor house on six days, was sustained without formal warning or precept.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
One Ramsay, son to the L. Cockpen, pursuing the L. Conheath, by a summons upon six day's citation, to remove from the house of ——, without any preceding warning, or other order of removing used before the term of Whitsunday; and it being alleged, That that order so summary without warning could not be sustained, seeing the defender alleged, that this house was not a tower or fortalice, wherein such summary actions are only sustained, and had neither fosse, nor barmkyn-wall about it, nor battelling, but was only an ordinary house. The Lords nevertheless sustained the order, and found no necessity of a warning, seeing this was an house not necessary for labouring the ground, but was a great house, bigged for the heritor's proper use. So the 8th of November 1631, a supplication at the L. of Whittingham's instance, against the Lady, for summary charges of horning against her, to deliver the place of Whittingham, was granted, without necessity to pursue therefore; and before, the like was done also by bill to the L. of Halton.
Fol. Dic. v. 2. p. 335. Durie, p. 549.
*** Observe, in the above case, are mentioned two other cases, Whittingham, and Halton.
