 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> John Paterson v James Thompson. [1781] Hailes 936 (21 February 1781) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1781/Hailes020936-0610.html Cite as: [1781] Hailes 936 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
[1781] Hailes 936
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR DAVID DALRYMPLE, LORD HAILES.
Subject_2 EXECUTION -
Subject_3 Of inhibition sustained, though not mentioning, in gremio, “witnesses to the premisses.”
John Paterson
v.
James Thompson
1781 .February 21st , and1784 .January 16th .Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
[Fac. Coll. IX. 216; Dict. 3807.]
Kaimes. The great reason for giving faith to a regular execution is, that its detail leaves room for disproving particulars; but when a messenger keeps in generals, you cannot check him. Messengers ought to be cautious and exact.
Braxfield. I would not lay hold on criticisms to cut down legal diligences. No man, seeing this inhibition on record, would have lent his money, from supposing that the diligence was not good: There are, indeed, omissions and inaccuracies in the diligence.
Hailes. What is it that makes null executions, but inaccuracies and omissions?
President. Of the same opinion; but hesitated on account of the decision 1752, Waddel.
On the 21st February 1781, “The Lords repelled the objection;” adhering to the last interlocutor of Lord Braxfield.
Act. A. Ogilvie. Alt. B. W. M'Leod. Diss. Justice-Clerk, Kaimes, Alva, Hailes, President.
Non liquet, Westhall.
N. B.—The Lords disregarded the objection that the name of the creditor did not appear in the diligence.
1784. January 16.—Gardenston.This execution is rather inaccurate than defective: no precise words are required with us as with the Romans.
Eskgrove. The subscription of the two witnesses sufficiently verifies the execution.
Swinton. This is different from the case of Gilchrist, 21 st February 1781, where the messenger only reported that every thing was lawfully done, without saying how.
On the 16th January 1784, “The Lords repelled the objection;” adhering to the interlocutor of Lord Braxfield, and to their own interlocutor, (21st February 1781.)
Act. B. W. M'Leod. Alt. Adam Ogilvie. [Hailes in the chair this week; so hardly any notes.]
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting