Title to pursue removing in the case of a purchaser not infeft.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In November 1801, Daniel Ferguson appointed Duncan Paterson his factor, with the usual powers, including that of removing tenants, one of whom, Peter Ferguson, by verbal agreement, held from year to year, a small possession on his estate.
In December 1801, Ferguson sold his estate to Morison, whose term of entry was Whitsunday 1802.
More than forty days before that term, and while Morison was not yet infeft, a summons of removing was executed against Peter Feguson, at the instance of Morison, the purchaser, and Paterson the factor, and decree in absence was obtained. Peter Ferguson, the tenant, presented a bill of suspension, upon the ground, that Daniel Ferguson was denuded, and Morison not infeft.
The Lord Ordinary on the Bills, being doubtful, if the combination attempted in the summons of the rights of the late proprietor, and of the purchaser, amounted to a sufficient title to remove tenants, reported the cause from the Bill-Chamber. But the Court considered the title derived from both seller and purchaser to be sufficient; and remitted to his Lordship to refuse the bill.
Lord Ordinary, Hermand.For the Suspender, Monnypenny.Agent, Ro. Mackenzie, W. S.For the Charger, Fletcher.Agent, D. Thomson, W. S.
Fac. Col. No 50. p. 103.
