Subject_1 ARRESTMENT. Subject_2 Warrant of Arrestment.
Binnie v. Ross
Date: 5 March 1628 Case No. No 4.
The Lords were of opinion, but did not decide, that arrestment could not proceed upon a bond, before action on it.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In an action to make arrested goods furthcoming, the Lords were of the mind (but not decided in this process) that an arrestment execute upon a naked bond, whereupon no sentence was recovered, or any action intented the time of the arrestment, was but a naked intimation of the party's right to him, against whom the arrestment was execute; and nevertheless the same was a sufficient ground, when sentence should be recovered against the principal debtor, for whose debt the arrestment was execute, to produce action against him, in whose hands the goods were arrested, after sentence obtained against the debtor, and that nothing could be done in prejudice of the arrestment; albeit at the using thereof, there was neither dependence nor decreet obtained against the principal debtor, but that arrestments in such cases were as effectual for moveables, as inhibitions for immoveables.
