You are here:BAILII >>
Databases >>
Scottish Court of Session Decisions >>
Mr. Robert White of Bennochie, Advocate, v John Knox, Tenant in Cartmore. [1711] Mor 16841 (27 December 1711)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1711/Mor3816841-063.html Cite as:
[1711] Mor 16841
Mr Robert White of Bennochie, Advocate, v. John Knox, Tenant in Cartmore
Date: 27 December 1711 Case No. No. 63.
A writ found null because it was not signed by two notaries and four witnesses present at the time, but was signed first by one notary and two witnesses, and afterwards by another notary and other two notaries.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In a process at the instance of Mr. Robert White, against John Knox, the Lords found a tack granted by a person who could not write null, in respect it was not signed by two notaries and four witnesses present at the time, in the terms of the act 80. Parl. 6. Ja. 6, but was only signed at first by one notary and two witnesses, and at sometime thereafter by another notary and other two witnesses; albeit it was alleged, That the act of Parliament requires only the witnesses to be present at the time when the notaries subscribe, whether unico contextu, or ex intervallo; in respect it was answered, That law doth no more trust notaries subscribing separately in such matters, than it doth the testimony of singular or not concurring witnesses. This is clear from the statute requiring writs of importance granted by persons who cannot write, to be subscribed by two notaries before four witnesses present at that time, which implies, that both the notaries must subscribe before the witnesses then present, whence they are called Co-notaries. So it was decided, M'Morran against Black, No. 41. p. 16830. Cow against Craig, No. 46. p. 16833. Anderson against Cock, No. 61. p. 16840. The same is also confirmed by the authority of Craig, Feud. Pag. 156, and from the common law, Nov. 73. Cap. 8.
