Interdiction strikes not against onerous or rational Deeds.
Earl Athole v. -
Date: 7 February 1607 Case No. No 21.
Interdictors having refused consent improperly, the Court interponed their authority to supply the defect.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The Earl of Athole being warded in the castle of Edinburgh, for not exhibiting John Dow M'Gilliecalloun, having presented diverse supplications to the Council for his liberty, for obeying such charge as was used against him in his Majesty's name, for his service, and quieting the country, the same was refused, unless he would find caution for his remaining within the town of Edinburgh, and for his obedience of the said charge. At last, having named my Lord Ochiltry and the Laird of Clunie, they consented upon condition, that the Lords, by their deliverance, would provide, that the Earl of Athole's own bond for their relief, should be sufficient, notwithstanding that he was interdicted, and his interdictor had not consented thereto; whereupon, they having given in their supplication to the Lords of Session, they considered, that as the Earl had necessity to obey the said charge, and though his own bond given to the King would have been sufficient without consent of his interdictors, so his bond for relief of his cautioners was sufficient without consent of his interdictors, seeing he could not obtain his liberty, nor enable himself to obey the King's charge without caution; and thereupon the Lords interponed their authority to these cautioners' relief by their deliverance fore said, declaring the same to be as sufficient as if the said interdictors had consented.
