Whether it can be proved by a tenant's oath, that he had agreed to remove without warning?
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In a removing, the tenant objecting that he had not been warned, and the master replying, that he offered to prove, by his oath, that he had agreed to remove without warning; the Lords seemed to have no doubt, but that the same was relevant by his oath; but only “Ordained him to depone before answer.”
The Lords had determined the counter part of this question, 24th January 1734, Carlisle contra Lawson, where a tenant having, after expiry of his tack, removed without a renunciation, in a process at the master's instance for the rent, it was found relevant to prove by his oath, that he had verbally agreed the tenant should have leave to remove without renunciation.
Fol. Dic. v. 4. p. 161. Kilkerran, (Proof.) No 7. p. 443.
