Interdiction strikes not against onerous or rational Deeds.
L Collington v. Faw
Date: 29 July 1624 Case No. No 23.
An interdicted person's bond to a tradesman for work, was sustained tho' granted without consent of his interdictors.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In an action pursued by L. Collington and Mr Robert Foulis, persons to whom George Hume of Broxmouth was interdicted against one called Faw, for reduction of a bond of L. 120 given to the defender by the said George Hume, because it was made after the publication of the said interdiction, the Lords assoilzied the defender from the pursuit, and found that the reason of the preceding interdiction ought not to militate against bonds, of the nature and quality of the bond controverted, viz. where bonds are granted to craftsmen by persons interdicted for the price of their work, travels, or workmanship, or wages, as this bond was, which was granted to a mason who had wrought to the said George Hume in his craft of mason-work, who ought not to be defrauded of the price of his travels; but the Lords ordained him to prove, that he really wrought in his craft to the pursuer, which being proved, the bond was found ought to be sustained. See Proof.
Act. Foulis.Alt. Belshes.Clerk, Gibson.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 479. Durie, p. 142.
