Days, how computed. - Induciæ in a charge of horning. - Baron decrees. - Citations pro confesso. - Criminal sentences. - Induciæ before inferior courts. - Reductions and improbations. - Privileged summons. - Decree-arbitral. - Citation of tutors and curators.
Hay v. Drummond
Date: 26 November 1667 Case No. No 14.
The Lords resolved, and caused intimate to the advocates, that hereafter they would only give two terms in reductions, and three terms in improbations.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In a reduction Hay of Hayston contra Drummond and Hepburn, a sasine being called for, the defenders having alleged that the same being registrate, and they condescending upon the registration, the pursuer should extract it himself,
The Lords did debate amongst themselves, whether the defender should be obliged to extract and produce the sasine. Some were of the opinion that there is a difference betwixt decreets and registrate bonds, and such like, and betwixt sasines and charters, which being the defender's own evidents, and the principals not being in the registers, they are presumed to have them; and if they have them not, ought to extract them. Others thought, that seeing extracts do satisfy the production in reductions, if the defenders have neither principals nor extracts, and be content to make faith thereupon, it were hard they should be at the charge to extract them, in order to a process against themselves. The Lords did nothing upon the debate.
The Lords did resolve, and caused intimate to the advocates, That hereafter they would only give two terms in reductions, and three terms in improbations.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 466. Dirleton, No 111. p. 47.*** Stair reports this case:
Mr John Hay having pursued a reduction of the rights of some lands against Mr John Drummond, and called for the rights made to him by umquhile Patrick Hepburn, Mr John Drummond got three terms to produce, reserving his defences, and at the last term alleged, no certification against the rights granted by Patrick Hepburn, because none to represent Patrick Hepburn were called. A diligence was granted incidenter to the pursuer to call the representatives of Patrick Hepburn, whereupon he cited Patrick Hepburn his eldest son, and apparent heir, who having gotten one very short term, and that circumduced against him, it was now alleged, That all the terms ought to be granted to Patrick Hepburn, seeing he was a party necessary to be called, and his rights were to be reduced. —The pursuer answered, That this being a single reduction de jure, there was no more due but one term. 2dly, Albeit more were due, yet Mr John Drummond having run three terms already, he can crave no more but one, upon the account of Patrick Hepburn his author.
The Lords, in respect the term assigned to Patrick Hepburn was but on six days, allowed him a second term; and ordained it to be intimated by the Ordinary to the advocates, that in single reductions of rights of lands, they would grant two terms for production, and in reductions and improbations three only.
