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 Warning held to be necessary, where the tack contained a clause to remove without it.

Earl of Eglinton
v.
James Fulton

Date: 24 Janaury 1771

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

[Fac. Coll., V. 205; Dictionary, 13,886.]

Gardenston. Some intimation was necessary, not in strict law, but from reasons of humanity. I think there was intimation enough. A tack is a bona fide contract. There is no pretence of bona fides: but the tenant is catching at every quibble, in order to retain possession. Tenants have found so many devices that it is almost impracticable for a master to get rid of them at the expiry of the lease. They take an additional year's possession at law. This ought not to be encouraged.

Auchinleck. On the 12th April 1770, the tenant was charged to remove at Martinmas 1769 and Beltane 1770; and so the Ordinary found, which was an oversight. He ought to have sustained the charge as sufficient warning to remove at Martinmas 1770, and Beltane 1771.

On the 24th January 1771, “the Lords found that the notification given in April 1770, was sufficient to make the defender remove at Martinmas 1770, and Beltane 1771; and, in respect that Martinmas 1770 is past, ordained her instantly to remove from the arable land, and at Beltane from the houses and grass;” altering Lord Pitfour's interlocutor.

Act. A. Lockhart. Alt. G. Ferguson.