Payment and Consignation how relevant to be proved.
Nisbet v. Short in Leith
Date: 15 July 1624 Case No. No 138.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In an action pursued by one Nisbet against Short in Leith, for payment of some little sums addebted by the defender to —— Millar, the pursuer's umquhile husband, to whom she was executrix; the defender alleged, That the sums contained in the bonds were paid, and offered to prove the same by witnesses. The Lords found, That this allegeance of payment could not be proved but by writ or oath of party, and refused to admit the same to be proved by witnesses, albeit that the sum contained in each bond was within L. 40; seeing writ could not be taken away nor destroyed by witnesses.
Act. Oliphant.Alt. Belshes.Clerk, Hay.
The same was found in an action betwixt Maxwell and Aikenhead, albeit the sum was offered to be proved paid per testes omni exceptione majores.
Act. Aikenhead.Alt. ——.Clerk, Gibson.
Fol. Dic. v. 2. p. 223. Durie, p. 138.
