The execution must specify the Names and Designations of the Parties, Dwelling-houses, &c.
Subject_3 SECT. IV.
Execution by leaving a Copy.
Sir Patrick Threapland v. Sir John Strachan
1684.
February. Case No. No 99.
An execution of a warning, bearing that ‘a copy was left at the house.’ was found null.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In a removing, it being alleged that the warning was null, in so far as the the execution on it at the dwelling-house, did not bear six knocks, or that a copy was left and affixed upon the principal, door, but only, “that a copy was left at the house,” which might be true, though it was left at a back door, contrary to the act 75th, Parliament 6th, James V. and 39th act, Parliament 6th, Queen Mary, anent warnings;
Answered; The first of the cited acts of Parliament doth not require knocks but when the doors are shut; and in fortification of that part; of the execution, ‘that a copy was left at the house,’ it is offered to be proven, that a copy was affixed upon the most patent door.
Replied; Where a messenger has access, he should offer a copy to some of the servants, and upon their refusal, affix it upon the door, conform to the said act 75th; and the quarrelled execution not bearing this, it appear to have been executed at the door when entrance was denied, and then six knocks should have been made, and the execution should have expressed so much.
The Lords found the execution of the warning null.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 264. Harcarse, (Removing.) No 839. p. 240.
