Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Subject_1 IMPROBATION.
Subject_2 SECT. V.

In what cases Extracts sustained to satisfy production. - When condescendence of the writs called for is sufficient. - Transumpts.

Douglas
v.
Ferguson and Cranston

Date: 5 March 1613
Case No. No 110.

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

In an action betwixt Mr Richard Douglas and John Ferguson for reduction of a tack ex capite interdictionis, the Lords found the reduction competent to the said Mr Richard, who was assignee to the person interdicted, viz. the Lord of and that he might be heard to reduce, as well as the heir of the La. Cirlestain, in whose favours the interdiction was conceived.

In the same cause the Lords found, that the interdiction was sufficient to stay the Laird of to give a tack, albeit it was alleged, that George Cranston, receiver of the tack, was kindly tenant.

Item, in the same cause it was found, that the extract of the publication proved the reason, and the Lords would not compel Mr Richard to produce the principal, notwithstanding that Cranston offered him to prove the inhibition.

Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 448. Kerse, MS. fol. 62.