Depositation being acknowledged, the terms how relevant to be proved.
Cowan v. Ramsay
Date: 24 February 1675 Case No. No 174.
When the terms of depositation are in writ, the oath of the depositar is not received to prove contrary thereto.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Charles Cowan having charged James Ramsay upon a decreet of the Lords, he suspended, and alleged, That the decreet was unwarrantably extracted. It was answered, That the allegeance was denied: 2do, The decreet could not be quarrelled, because it was ratified by a posterior agreement produced, depositated in Pitcairlie's hands, and the terms of depositation subscribed by him and the parties. It was replied, That the parties thereafter passed from that minute, and gave order to the depositar to cancel it, which was offered to be proved by his oath. It was duplied, That ordinarily the oaths of depositars prove Where the terms of depositation are not in Writ, but the same is not receivable here, where the terms are in writ, subscribed by the depositar and the parties.
The Lords refused the depositar's oath in this case, in respect the terms of depositation were in writ.
