Citation in Processes of Mails and Duties and Removings.
Mr Cornelius Inglis v. Mr Roger Hogg
Date: 9 December 1664 Case No. No 99.
In a removing, it was not sustained as a defence, that the defenders were tenants to another, and he not called; unless they could condescend upon their master's right, which might defend him and them.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Mr Cornelius Inglis pursuing a removing against certain tenants near Dunbar, upon an infeftment and apprising, it was alleged for the tenants, that they were tenants to Mr Roger Hogg by payment of mail and duty to him, and he was not called. The pursuer answered, non relevat, unless the defenders condescend upon Mr Roger's right, which might defend him and them. The defenders answered, 1st, That they could not be obliged to dispute their master's right, but he ought to be called to dispute his own right, 2dly, It was insinuate, that Mr Roger had an apprising, and a charge against the superior.
The Lords repelled the defence, unless the defenders condescended upon such a right as were valid to exclude the pursuer, being prior to his; but the tenants alleged no such right, and Mr Roger's charge was posterior to the pursuer's infeftment.
