Subject_1 ASSIGNATION. Subject_2 Formalities of an Instrument of Intimation.
Cheisly v. Cheisly
Date: 5 January 1681 Case No. No 48.
Intimations were not in use to be inserted in protocals.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
John Cheisly pursues Mr William Cheisly to deliver him an extract of instruments of intimation of several assignations, made by his father to the pursuer, and for that effect to produce his protocal, that by inspection thereof it might appear, whether these instruments of intimation were therein.—The defender alleged, That instruments of intimation are never insert in protocals de consuetudine, and that notaries were not obliged, upon such pretences, to bring in their protocals to Edinburgh for inspection, which would breed them an intolerable trouble.—The pursuer answered, That all the notaries at their admission gave bonds to keep protocals of all instruments of sasine, reversions, and other instruments of importance; and intimations were of importance; and that protocals were books for public interest and no man should be refused inspection thereof, more than the registers, or the protocals brought into the clerk-register.—It was replied, That other instruments of importance were never extended further than to real rights of land or annualrent.
The Lords found, That instruments of intimations of assignations were not accustomed to be insert in protocals; and therefore found notaries not obliged to bring in their protocals to give private parties inspection; but ordained the defender to depone, whether these instruments were insert in his protocal, and to produce what he acknowledged upon oath. See Public Officer.
