Subject_1 ASSIGNATION. Subject_2 Intimation by what equivalents suppliable.
Stevinson v. L Craigmiller.
Date: 27 January 1624 Case No. No 59.
Found that a a ratification of an assignation by the debtor was not equivalent to intimation.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In the action Stevinson against Craigmiller, whereof mention is made in the other process, p. 836. the Lords found, that a ratification made by Patrick Edgar, who was debtor to Clement, of the assignation made by Clement to Craigmiller of the debt, and decreet thereupon, recovered by Clement against Patrick, was not equivalent to an intimation, and was not as sufficient, as if the same had been intimate by Craigmiller to Patrick the debtor; and therefore found the comprising deduced by Craigmiller against Patrick, after Clement's decease, who was his cedent, to be null, notwithstanding of the ratification foresaid; and albeit the said ratification was made by Patrick in Clement's lifetime, before his decease: for the Lords found, that intimations ought to be legally made by a notary, before witnesses, which, as it was most solemn and requisite so to be done, to these were the most probable means to eschew falset; for being otherways done, by such privy ratifications, being deeds only done amongst the parties selves, might have the greater suspicion of falset or simulation, and had the more difficult means of trial and discovery of the same.
