Warning, in what Cases necessary. - How to be executed.
Viscount of Frendraught v. Dame Margery Seaton
Date: 14 July 1699 Case No. No 74.
No warning on the act 1555 necessary in removing from a fortalice and pertinents.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
I reported the Viscount of Frendraught against Dame Marjory Seaton, the former Viscount's relict, for removing from the fortalice and tower, with the yards and parks. Alleged, imo, He was not infeft, and so could not remove; 2do, The execution of warning was null, because, by the 39th act 1555, a copy must be left on the ground of the lands, which was omitted here. Answered, to the first, He was served heir in general, which was sufficient against her who had no right to compete on, her husband never being infeft; and, as to the second, The act of Parliament concerned only tenants in landward, and not liferenters, or possessors of houses, as Sir George M'Kenzie, in his observations on that act, shews to have been decided. Replied, The estate of Frendraught goes not to the heir-male, but to heirs whatsomever; and they will not suffer him to remove the Lady, and desire to be heard for their interest. The Lords repelled the objection against the execution of warning, and found it sufficient to found a removing from a tower; but as to his interest, they ordained the ordinary to try if the estate in controversy belonged to him as heir-male, or to the heirs of line.
Fol. Dic. v. 2. p. 335. Fountainhall, v. 2. p. 60.
