Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
Scottish Court of Session Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> William Black v James Hamilton. [1669] 1 Brn 582 (4 June 1669)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1669/Brn010582-1475.html
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR PETER WEDDERBURN, LORD GOSFORD.
Date: William Black
v.
James Hamilton
4 June 1669 Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
William Black, having obtained decreet, before the Bailies of Edinburgh, for 180 pounds Scots, for the laying a quantity of copper in the weigh-house of Leith, whereof he was tacksman; in which decreet, Hamilton was holden as confessed; and having suspended and intented reduction upon that reason, That the decreet was given in absence, when he was north about his lawful affairs; whereas, if he had compeared, he had a good defence, to which he craved to be reponed. The Lords did repone him against the decreet, he paying the expenses to the pursuer.
Notwithstanding it was alleged, That he being cited, personally apprehended, and holden as confessed, he could not be reponed, unless he had sufficiently purged his contumacy; which was not done: For as to decreets before inferior judges, where there was a lawful defence competent, and was omitted, and the party holden as confessed, for no compearance:
The Lords found, That the defenders might be reponed ut supra: whereas, if he had no defence to elide the libel, they would not have reponed him.
Page 47.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting