Not competent to object against a Party's title, without a Legal Interest. - What understood to be a Legal Interest.
Hamilton v. Durham
Date: 21 December 1621 Case No. No 24.
A person, in whose hands an arrestment was laid, was not allowed to plead, that the arresting creditor could not insist in a furthcoming, having received payment from the common debtor.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Mr Patrick Hamilton pursues Sir James Durham of Duntarvie, who was his debtor in sums of money, and Francis Stuart, who was debtor to Sir James, to hear the said Francis decerned to pay, and make furthcoming, the sums addebted by him to Sir James, conform to his arrestment, for satisfaction of that debt owing by Sir James; wherein Sir James being debarred by horning, Francis compeared, and alleged, that the pursuer was satisfied, by Sir James himself, of that debt owing to him, and so he could not pursue Francis to make the same furthcoming. The pursuer answered, That that was not competent to him to allege, who was debtor to Sir James, who not proponing the same, he had no interest.—The Lords repelled the allegeance, and found that the same was not competent to be proponed by Francis Stuart, who purged not the debt owing by himself to Sir James.
Act. Primrose.Alt. ——.Clerk, Scot.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 517. Durie, p. 8.
