A contract being registered at the instance of one party, whether another party interested can proceed in summary diligence? See No. 6. & 15.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
A contract being registrated at the instance of George Bruce, by way of action as heir to his father, against James King, advocate, who was the contractor with his said father on the one and other parts; and James King having raised letters upon that contract, for charging of the said George as heir foresaid to fulfil to him that which his umquhile father was obliged to him in the said contract; which being suspended by the said George upon this reason, viz. That albeit the contract was registrated at his instance, so that execution might pass thereon at his instance, against the said James; yet seeing it was not registrated at the said James's instance, he could not raise charges thereon, wanting a warrant of registration; and the said James contending that the said contract being once registrated, at the instance of any of the parties, thereby execution was also competent to the other party against him, at whose instance the registration was decerned, as if it had been registrated at the instance of both parties; the Lords found, that the charges raised by James King could not be sustained, the contract not being registrated at his instance, especially the registration being expede not by umquhile George Bruce contractor, but by his son as heir to him, and the time of the registration thereof at his instance, this charger then not having desired (as the Lords found he might have done) that execution might also be used at his instance against the heir of the said other party, who sought the said registration; which being omitted, and so not having warrant for his charges, the Lords found the same could not be sustained.
Alt. Herriot.Alt. Bruce.Clerk, Gibson
Durie, p. 291.
