Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR DAVID DALRYMPLE, LORD HAILES.
Subject_2 REMOVING.
Subject_3 The Act 1555, with regard to Warnings, does not apply to Coal-works.

Andrew Wauchopk of Niddry
v.
Archibald Hope

Date: 15 December 1767

Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy

[Faculty Collection, IV. p. 121; Dictionary, 13,847.]

Coalston. I wish that Mr Hope had been more explicit in confessing or denying facts. The question is as to the Act 1555. It relates to lands, and has been so understood by the practice of the Court: it does not apply to houses in towns or to houses in the country without lands, to soap-works, to coallieries. Removing is not necessary. Notification was given.

Monboddo. I give great weight to the old decisions; Hope gives the true reason of the law, “because, in coal-works, there are no terms.” In rural tenements there are terms or times for sowing, &c.; so that a tenant must know whether he is to be allowed to reap that which he sows. In a case, 1741, Lord Darnley, no warning was required after the expiry of a tack of feu-duties. There is nothing in the objection of Captain M'Dougall not being called, for the tack was assignable, and was assigned.

Auchinleck. A case of the same kind occurred within these few weeks. Baird had a tack of the dung of Portsburgh: he pretended that a warning was necessary. This was justly repelled by the Court.

“The Lords remitted to the Sheriff to decern in the removing.”

Act. D. Rae. Alt. R. Blair. Reporter, Stonefield.