Where a writ, being an instrument in a process, is the defender's evidence, and is in his custody, a pursuer who is a singular successor, is not bound to produce it.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In the declarator of redemption, pursued by Patrick Adamson against Mr.Mark Ker, it was found, there was no necessity to produce the reversion, being in a contract betwixt the defender and the Laird of Wolmet, and which contract was the defender's own evident, and the pursuer a singular successor to Wolmet, who notwithstanding did produce, the time of the order, and now does produce an attested double under the hands of two nottaries, the principal contract being in the hands of one of the Clerks of Session for the time, and which the pursuer could not command; and in an other process betwixt Wilkie and Thomson, the same was found, though there was not an attested double produced, the pursuer being a singular successor, and the defender having the reversion at his own hand.
