Subject_1 ARBITRATION. Subject_2 Time of Endurance.
Earl of Linlithgow v. John Hamilton of Grange
Date: 12 January 1610 Case No. No 24.
A submission cannot be prorogated without the express consent of the parties, and that before the term expire.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In an action of registration of ane decreet-arbitral, pursued by the Earl of Linlithgow against John Hamilton of Grange, it was found, that the decreet-arbitral was null ipso jure, because it was not pronounced within the precise time contained in the submission; and that, notwithstanding the submission bore to be pronounced with prorogation of days; and that there was a prorogation made by the judges after the term contained in the submission; and that, to supply the parties consent to the prorogation, it was offered to be proven, by the party's oath, that he consented the same should be prorogate. The reason of this decision was, because, according to the party's consent, the judges had not prorogate in due time, viz. infra tempus compress:
