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 £5, 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!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Granger v Hamilton. [1738] 1 Elchies 404 (1 December 1738) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1738/Elchies010404-002.html Cite as: [1738] 1 Elchies 404 |
||
[New search] [Help]
[1738] 1 Elchies 404
Subject_1 REMOVING.
Granger
v.
Hamilton
1738 ,Dec. 1 .
Case No.No. 2.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
A pretty new question was determined upon the import of the act of Parliament anent warning tenants, which requires the removing to be any time within the year 40 days before Whitsunday, Whether these words “within the year” refers to the term of the warning, or the conventional term of removing? 2dly, Whether these words mean within that year of God or within 12 months? The case was, that the conventional terms were Martinmas and Beltan, or first of May, and the warning was used in October of the year preceding that Martinmas. I thought at first that it behoved to be within a year or 12 months of the conventional term, but it was observed that this might be impossible where the conventional term was at Beltan or any other day within 40 days before Whitsunday. However Arniston continued still of that mind, but that stumbled me. The President thought that “within the year” meant within that year of God in which the Whitsunday was. However upon the vote it carried by a great majority to sustain the warning.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting
