Subject_1 EXHIBITION AD DELIBERANDUM. Subject_2 SECT. II.
Who liable to Exhibit? - No interest to call for Writs where the Defunct was Denuded. - Ought to be no conclusion for Delivery, nor for Count and Reckoning.
William Hogg v. John Straiton
Date: 7 December 1669 Case No. No 20.
The Lords refused to sustain an action of count and reckoning, at the instance of an heir who raised the action, that upon a view how the balance stood, he might determine whether to enter or not. See No 13.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Robert Young having made a disposition of some tenements of lands to John Straiton, upon a back-bond, that he being satisfied and relieved of his cautionries wherein he was or should be engaged for the said Robert, that his right should be null and void, the said Robert having subscribed an assignation in his own time blank, which was lying by him the time of his decease, his son and apparent heir did fill up Robert Young's name therein, who transferred the same in favours of William Hogg, who thereupon pursued a count and reckoning against Straiton, concluding to hear and see it found, that his right was null, it being satisfied by intromission. It was alleged for the defender, That the translation made to the pursuer was to the behoof of the apparent heir, who had renounced to be heir to that same defender; and that that assignation being left blank by his father, it could be no title whereupon to pursue, it being filled up as said is. The Lords did sustain the defence to be proven by Hogg's oath, and the apparent heir's; notwithstanding it was replied, that the apparent heir might pursue a count and reckoning ad deliberandum, which the Lords found he could not do in that case, without some right made to him, or that he were served heir, apparent heirs having only right ad deliberandum to pursue exhibitions.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 285. Gosford, MS. No 213. p. 86.
