Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR JOHN LAUDER OF FOUNTAINHALL Subject_2 SUMMER SESSION.
Philip Nisbet v. Stephen Bruntsfield
Date: 20 February 1680
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In this action, the Lords found, on report, that the subscribed account produced is not sufficient to infer a debt against the defender, unless the pursuer will instruct, either by the defender's oath, or by witnesses, that the salmon contained in the subscribed account was meddled with by the defender's father after the date of the discharge, in anno 1665, of the copartnery betwixt them, produced in process; and repel the exception of the nullity proponed against the account, as wanting writer's name and witnesses, in respect of the answers made thereto, viz. that, there being four parties subscribers, they are witnesses one to another; and, 2do, that it is in re mercatoria. See the contrary, Dury, 14th Feb. 1663, Rankine.
So the discharge 1665 cuts off the counting for any salmon preceding its date; but they allow the pursuer to prove thir salmon in the account 1669 were furnished after the said discharge.
