No exception will be sustained unless proponed at Litiscontestation.
John Rule v. Thomas Hamilton
Date: 26 February 1623 Case No. No 43.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Thomas Hamilton in Leith being obliged to pay to John Rule L. 100, and John Rule being addebted to others in greater sums, one of the creditors pursued Thomas Hamilton to make the sum of L. 100, owing by him to Rule, forthcoming, and likewise summoned Rule for his interest. The pursuer referred the verity of the debt to Hamilton's oath. He made faith, that he rested only L. 42, which he was decerned to pay, and paid. Thereafter, Rule charges Hamilton to pay L. 100, conform to his bond. He suspends upon the decreet given upon his oath, and payment made conform thereto. Rule answered, That he had referred nothing to his oath, but proved the debt by the bond. The Lords found, that, because Rule had not in the first judgment used the bond to prove the debt against Hamilton, but suffered his oath of verity to be taken, he could not now be received to use any other probation whereby Hamilton might be proved mansworn.
