Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In the suspension of a decreet of removing, raised by ——, tenant to Bethune of Blebo, against his said Master, of a decreet of removing recovered against him before the Sheriff of Fife, for not payment of bygone rents, and finding caution in time coming; the Lords found the decreet null, as being recovered before the Sheriff, whom they found not judge competent in extraordinary removings of that nature, even albeit the defender did Compear, and so, as was alleged, prorogated the jurisdiction; and also in the same process, the Lords found, That there was no necessity of warning in extraordinary removings of this nature. See Removing.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 493. P. Falconer, No 13. p. 6.*** Sir P. Home reports this case:
1682. March.—Beaton of Blebo having obtained decreet of removing against——his tenant before the Sheriff of Fife, for not payment of his bygone back-tack duty, and finding caution for payment of the same in time coming; the Lords found that a Sheriff was not judge competent to such extraordinary removings, even albeit the defender did compear, and did not propone that defence, and so seemed to have homologated the Sheriff's jurisdiction; and therefore found the decreet null; and found that there was no necessity of a warning in extraordinary removings of that nature.
