A discharge by a proprietor to his tenants sustained, though without witnesses and not holograph.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Schaw pursues certain tenants for their duties, who produced several discharges, against which it was alleged, that the discharges were null, wanting witnesses, and were not written with the discharger's own hand, and so were null by the act of Parliament. It was answered, that custom had introduced several exceptions from the act, as bills of exchange, of the greatest importance, which are valid, being subscribed without witnesses, albeit not holograph; and in like manner the discharges granted to tenants, which by long custom, through all the kingdom, use only to be subscribed by the landlords, without witnesses, and written with another, hand.
The Lords sustained the discharges, and would not put the tenants to prove, that they were truly subscribed, unless they were offered to be improved; in which case, though the indirect manner was wanting, they might be improved, by comparison of subscriptions, and other adminicles, wherein less would serve than in other improbations.
Stair, v. 1. p. 469.
*** The like found 24th March 1685, Glendinning against Glendinning No. 67. p. 9213. voce Mutual Contract.
