Ejectment by a landlord.
Definition source
Kinnear, J. B., Digest of House of Lords Cases Decided on Appeal from Scotland, 1709-1864 — Glossary of Scottish Law Terms (Edinburgh, 1865). Public domain.
Legal Subject: Removing |
| Case | Date | Legal Subject | Abstract |
|---|---|---|---|
| Marjoribanks and Ramsay v. Spottiswoods | 1795 | Tack, Adjudication, Heritor, Lease, Possession, Removing | Marjoribanks and Ramsay raised an action to remove Spottiswoods from Hallyards farm after the lease expired, alleging that the defenders refused to vacate despite implied notice and prior conduct indicating an intent to leave. The defenders maintained that no lawful intimation had been given forty days prior to Whitsunday as required by the tack. The litigation turned on whether the statutory or conventional notice period for removal had been satisfied. |
| Robertson v. McClure | 1779 | Roup, Penalty, Removing, Sist | In 1758, John McClure commissioned William Robertson to offer £112 for a house and yard at a public roup (auction). According to McClure, Robertson purchased the property at a higher rate than authorized. McClure refused to pay the price. Robertson then became subject to penalties and other expenses, which compelled him to bring a process against McClure before the Magistrates of Ayr. The Magistrates granted a decree in absence, against which McClure then obtained a (sist) judicial stay. Despite this stay, Robertson then made the debt over to James Fergusson. In August 1775, Fergusson obtained a decree of adjudication against McClure on account of the above-mentioned decree and some debts that had been owed by McClure's father. Fergusson then assigned this adjudication to Robert Robertson, the son of William Robertson. Robert Robertson took possession of some property owned by McClure after which he successfully brought a process of removing against him. McClure applied by bill of suspension to the Court of Session, which was refused by Lord Gardenstone. McClure then petitioned the Court for review, arguing that both debts were invalid: one, because there was a sist on it, and the other, because it had been extinguished by a decree of mails and duties obtained by Robertson. Furthermore, he argued that because his property were jointly owned by him and his four siblings, the charger's decree of moving was erroneous in regard to four-fifths of the property. |
