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!
You are here:BAILII >>
Databases >>
Scottish Court of Session Decisions >>
Adamson v Ker. [1662] Mor 16090 (00 January 1662)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1662/Mor3716090-025.html Cite as:
[1662] Mor 16090
Where a writ, being an instrument in a process, is the defender's evidence, and is in his custody, a pursuer who is a singular successor, is not bound to produce it.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In the declarator of redemption, pursued by Patrick Adamson against Mr.Mark Ker, it was found, there was no necessity to produce the reversion, being in a contract betwixt the defender and the Laird of Wolmet, and which contract was the defender's own evident, and the pursuer a singular successor to Wolmet, who notwithstanding did produce, the time of the order, and now does produce an attested double under the hands of two nottaries, the principal contract being in the hands of one of the Clerks of Session for the time, and which the pursuer could not command; and in an other process betwixt Wilkie and Thomson, the same was found, though there was not an attested double produced, the pursuer being a singular successor, and the defender having the reversion at his own hand.
