The execution must specify the Names and Designations of the Parties, Dwelling-houses, &c.
Subject_3 SECT. IV.
Execution by leaving a Copy.
Napier v. Gordon of Grange
Date: 12 February 1670 Case No. No 95.
An inhibition found null, because the executions of it bore not that a copy was left at the market cross.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
John Napier, as representing his father, did pursue William Gordon of Grange, as representing Hugh his father, for payment of 2000 merks, due by the said umquhile Hugh's bond; and upon the said William's renouncing to be heir, obtained adjudication of the lands of Grange and others, in so far as might belong to the said umquhile Hugh's debtor's heirs, and thereupon did pursue the tenants for mails and duties; in which action, it was alleged for William Gordon, now of Grange, That he stands infeft by a disposition from the said umquhile Hugh Gordon of Grange, his father, for onerous causes and sums of money undertaken, and paid for his father, which was found relevant; and to evite the same, the said John Napier raised reduction of Grange's right, granted by his father, ex capite inhibitionis, raised against his father upon the said bond, before the disposition made to this Grange; which inhibition being produced this day fortnight, it was alleged for Grange that the same was null, because the executions bore not a copy to have been left at the market cross, at the publication of the inhibition, which the Lords found relevant; and now the pursuer insisted on this reason, That the disposition, though it bore onerous causes, yet being after the contracting of his debt, by a father to a son, the narrative bearing the cause thereof, is not probative against a third party, but the same must yet be instructed.
Which the Lords sustained, and ordained Grange to produce the instructions thereof. See Proof.
