BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
It is enogh for a tenant to say, that he is tenant to N. who is infeft, and he not warned; and he needs not say, that his master is lawfully infeft, but only infeft; Laird of Banff against his Tenants, 7th December 1627. But if the lands be kirk-lands, he must say, infeft and confirmed; because if his master's infeftment of kirk-lands be not confirmed, it is null by way of exception, by the act of Parliament. Marr against Tenants of Drybrugh, 20th Feb. 1628.
Spottiswood, (Removing.) p. 276.*** Auchinleck reports this case:
The Tenants of Dryburgh pursued for removing, alleged, That they were Tenants to , who was infeft. To which it was replied, That the exception is not relevant, they would allege lawfully infeft and confirmed, in respect it was kirklands, The Lords repelled the exception, in respect of the reply.
