Whether an Heir, who has renounced, must be further Discussed.
Crawfurd v. The Heirs of Line of the Laird of Rattar
Date: 22 June 1678 Case No. No 31.
Found in conformity with Auchterlouny against Guthrie, No 29. p. 3578.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Thomas Crawfurd having pursued the heirs of line an provision of the Laird of Rattar, for payment of a debt of their father's, and both having compeared, the heir of line offered to renounce, and at the term produced his renunciation, and the cause coming to be advised, the pursuer craved sentence against the heirs of provision, who alleged no sentence, because the heir of line was not sufficiently discussed as to all the passive titles, but only is charged to enter heir. The pursuer answered, That the heir of provision having compeared, and neither having condescended or instructed any heritage to be affected, nor craved that the heir of line's oath might be taken thereupon in intio litis, he cannot now post conclusionem in causa put the pursuer to a new litiscontestation and probation against the heir of line.
Which the Lords sustained, and found the pursuer obliged to discuss the heir of line no further; but at the desire of the heir of provision, they admitted protestation, that adjudication might proceed, in respect of the renunciation and liquid bond produced, without any other decreet cognitionis causa, and ordained the pursuer upon payment to assign all to the heir of provision, that he might take his relief against the heirs of line.
