Effect of a Blank Writ after the Death of the Proprietor.
The Earl of Kinghorn v. Carnegie of Pittarro
Date: 23 February 1669 Case No. No 12.
A deed, blank in the sum, not filled up till after the death of the granter, found null.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In a declarator pursued at Kinghorn's instance to hear and see it found, that a bond subscribed by Kinghorn's father to Pittarro, but delivered to Alexander Keith, then his agent, blank in the sum, was null and void; seeing it was never filled up, nor delivered, till after both the death of Kinghorn and his agent; and was only filled up in the sum of 1060 merks by those that intromitted with Keith's papers, who delivered the same to Pittarro: It being alleged for the defender, That Keith by his missive, which was produced, granting him to be debtor to the defender in greater sums, he was in bona fide to receive the bond from Keith, who had power to fill up the same as he pleased: The Lords, before answer, ordained Pittarro to be examined upon oath anent the manner and time how that bond came in his hands; and those that meddled with Keith's papers to produce all writs they had, that it might be known that Keith was truly debtor to Pittarro.
Gosford, MS. p. 46.
1670. February 3.
In a declarator at Kinghorn's instance, against the Laird of Pittarro, to hear and see a bond of 1000 merks, granted by Kinghorn's father to Pittarro, found null and void, upon this reason, that the bond was subscribed, blank in the sum, and delivered to Alexander Keith, who was agent for the Earl, and remained blank during both the said Earl's lifetime and Alexander's, and was then filled up in the sum by Keith's relict, or her brother, who delivered the same to Pittarro; whereupon Pittarro being examined upon oath, and one Alexander Keith, who was a friend of the deceased Alexander, and who knew that conveyance: The Lords did sustain the declarator, and decerned the bond to be void and null; notwithstanding it was alleged, that the bond being now in Pittarro's possession, and delivered to him for as much money due to him by Keith, for which he got a decreet extending to this sum, it was lawful to fill up the same, it being intrusted blank by the Earl of Kinghorn; and that it ought to be presumed that the Earl of Kinghorn was debtor in as much, there being an account produced condescending on the particulars; only they reserved action, at their instance, against Kinghorn for any debt that they could make appear due by his father to Keith.
