Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
Scottish Court of Session Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> James Cunningham v George Borthwick. [1629] 1 Brn 300 (22 December 1629)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1629/Brn010300-0783.html
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR GEORGE AUCHINLECK OF BALMANNO.
Date: James Cunningham
v.
George Borthwick
22 December 1629 Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
James Cunningham, assignee constituted by David Clark, dagmaker, to an obligation of 300 merks, made by umquhile James Borthwick to the said David Clark; seeks transferring of the said bond against George Borthwick, son to the said umquhile James. It is alleged by the defender, No transferring; because upon this bond David Clark deduced comprising, which bond and comprising were reduced; so, till that decreet of reduction be first reduced, no transferring of the bond can be sustained. To the which it was replied, That the said decreet of reduction cannot be respected; because, in the said decreet, there is no reason of reduction libelled against the bond, but allenarly against the comprising; and, in the proposition of the summons of reduction, the bond is not called to be reduced, although, in the conclusion, the bond is, with the comprising following thereupon, called to be reduced. The Lords found such informality in the decreet, which was given for non-compearance, that they sustained the transferring, notwithstanding of the said decreet of reduction.
Page 58.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting