A chamberlaia granted bond to his master, either to take decrees against the tenants for arrears, or pay the debt himself. Not having said ‘betwixt and a certain day’, he was held to have been instanter debtor.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In a pursuit at the Earl of Rothes's instance, against Lesly of Tulloch, his chamberlain, for payment of L. 1718, for which he had given ticket in July 1662, alleging, (obliging) himself either to obtain decreets against the tenants of Rothes, or qualify them to be resting that sum; and in case he did not clear it, he obliged him to pay it out of his own estate. The said Walter Lesly having done nothing for obtaining decreets against the tenants, as he was obliged, that ever came to the pursuer's knowledge, albeit he was often required thereto, pursues him for payment of the said sum. It was alleged by the defender, That he had fulfilled his part of the obligement, in so far as he had recovered decreets against the tenants, and so could not: be liable for the same, and which decreets he is content to assign; and that the tenants are in as good condition as at the time of granting the ticket. The Lords repelled the defence, and decerned against the chamberlain, in regard of his long silence; for there being no day set down in the ticket, betwixt and which he was to clear the debt, against the tenants: The Lords thought he was instanter debtor; but the rather, that he had been so long silent; but superceded execution till the first of November, betwixt and which he might pursue the tenants, and obtain payment himself.
