Of facts inferring knowledge of, and consent to the right challenged. Effect of consent where the right is not known. Effect of legal steps passing of course. Effect of minority. Effect of payment.
Veitch v. Pallat and Ker
Date: 1 February 1676 Case No. No 28.
A person subscribed as witness to a right granted by his debtor. Found, that his knowledge of the contents of the deed, and acquiescence in it, could not be inferred from this circumstance.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
William Veitch, as having right to a sum due by James Sanderson to one Nairn, whereupon horning was used against Sanderson, did thereupon reduce an assignation granted by Sanderson to Robert Brown and James Ker, and was preferred to them in a sum granted by bond by Sir George Maxwell to Ker for the two parts, and Brown for a third, which bond was granted in place of a former bond due to Sanderson by Colonel Stuart. It is now alleged for Brown, That Veitch's sum ought only to burden Ker's part of the bond, because Sanderson the common author was denounced at the instance of Brown long before he granted the assignation to Ker, and therefore Peter Pallat succeeding in the right of Brown, could be burdened with no share of Veitch's debt. It was answered, 1mo, That, before Sanderson's rebellion, Ker had a joint interest with him in Stuart's debt, which is instructed by a declaration under Sanderson's hand, in which Veitch is witness, which must import Veitch's knowledge and consent to the truth of the declaration. 2do, Ker and Brown having accepted a bond from Sir George Maxwell to both, two thirds to Ker, and one third to Brown, Brown had acknowledged and homologated Ker's right, and could not quarrel the same, even by reduction, likeas now he hath no reduction.
The Lords found, that Veitch's subscribing as witness to Sanderson's declaration, did not import his knowledge or acknowledgement of the contents of the writ; and found, that Sanderson's declaration, after Veitch's diligence by horning, and a gift of escheat, now insisting upon the debt in the horning by reduction, could not prove or be effectual against Veitch, unless it were proved by a writ anterior to the rebellion: They found also, that the accepting of a joint bond did not so homologate as to hinder either party to reduce the others assignation, it being then standing, and the ground of that bond.
