A precept of warning found null, because the writer, though named therein, was not designed in terms of the act of Parliament.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In a removing at the instance of William Ross, against Charles Ross, the Lords found the precept of warning null, for that the writer, though named therein, was not designed in the terms of the act of Parliament 1681: Albeit the pursuer alleged, That statute did not extend to such writs as by former custom required not the writer's designation, viz. bills of exchange, holograph writs, receipts by masters to tenants, and precepts of warning; but hindered only to supply by a condescendence the designation of a writer, that law and former custom required to be designed: In respect it was answered for the defender, That the act is general and comprehending all writs; and custom hath introduced no exception of precepts of warning; though bills of exchange, receipts to tenants, and holograph writs, are excepted by the general custom.
