A bond was antidated in order to save it from inhibition. Fonnd null in toto.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
One Edmiston, and Rutherford her daughter, pursuing reduction and improbation of a bond made by umquhile Alexander Sym, Rutherford's husband, to Mr. Alexander Skeen, of 3,000 merks, as done after the serving of inhibition, used by the said Alison Edmiston, mother-in-law to the said Alexander Sym, and by the said Anna Rutherford her daughter, spouse to the said Alexander Sym, raised upon their contract of marriage; wherein the said Mr. Alexander Skeen compearing, and alleging, that the wife, nor her mother, (for the husband was called as defender in this process, for his interest) had no interest to reduce, or improve this bond, upon this ground libelled, as that it is false in the date thereof, seeing it bears a date before the inhibition, albeit the pursuers offered them to improve the same in data, being as they alleged, done after the inhibition; for eliding of the which interest, he was content that the said bond should be holden as done after the inhibition, and that the inhibition should not be prejudged thereby, nor yet the pursuer her contract of marriage, nor no head therein contained. The Lords nevertheless found, that the pursuer might improve the obligation in the date thereof; which being so improved, they found that it should fall in toto, and that it ought not to be respected, as a bond made after the inhibition, nor of any other date than it bore, quia quod non est verum de data, quam præ se fert, præsumitur non esse omnino verum, nec ullo tempore fuisse gestum.
