Dilatory defence. - If it must be instantly verified?
Crawford v. Debtors of Thomas Inglis
Date: 10 February 1663 Case No. No 156.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Thomas Crawford, as executor-creditor to umquhile Robert Inglis, pursues some of his debtors. It was alleged, No process; because Thomas, as factor for Robert Inglis, had pursued the same party, for the same cause, before the Commissaries of Edinburgh, wherein litiscontestation was made; and so now it cannot be pursued elsewhere, but the process ought to be transferred and insisted in. The pursuer answered, That he pursued then as factor, but now as executor-creditor, who did not consider what diligence defuncts did; but might insist therein, or not; 2dly, This being a dilator, is not instantly verified.
The Lords found the defence relevant, but would not find it competent, unless instantly verified; and because it behoved to be instructed by an act extracted.
