Warning, in what Cases necessary. - How to be executed.
Craw v. Craw
Date: 25 February 1680 Case No. No 68.
Found in conformity with Moodie against Tenants, No 54. p. 13820.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
It was stated as a query among the Lords, if the execution of a warning to remove was null, because it did not bear a copy to be left on the ground of the lands, as the 39th act of Parliament 1555 requires, and conform whereto the constant practice of the kingdom (which is the best interpreter of laws) uses to affix a copy on a forked stick thrust in the ground. It was reasoned, That where tenants are personally warned, as here, there needed not a copy to be left, because the act runs alternative, either personally, or at their dwelling places, and at the ground of the lands; which two last make but one member, and are only to be used in case they be not personally warned; which first alternative being performed, there was no need to perform the other. It was answered, The leaving a copy on the ground was useful, for thereby the subtenants (who needs not be warned) are acquainted to remove with their masters. The Lords found the warning null.
