Subject_1 QUOD AB INITIO VITIOSUM. Subject_2 SECT. II.
Citation cum Processu.
Lady Hisleside and her Husband v. Baillie of Littlegill
1682.
February. Case No. No 7.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The pursuer of an improbation calling for writs flowing from special authors-whom he had not cited, and craving the defender might take a term to, produce;
Alleged for the defender; That he could not be obliged to take a term, in respect his authors were not called; for though private and unknown authors may be called cum processu to the first term, when condescended on by the defender; yet when writs are called for, as flowing from special authors, these authors ought to be cited ab initio; because they might propone a defence against the taking of terms.
The Lords would not sustain process for taking of terms, till the authors mentioned in the libel were called, although it was usual not to libel or fill up the summons till immediately before the outgiving of the process, and would not allow them to be cited cum processu to the first term of production; and yet the King's officers are allowed to be cited cum processu, Duke of Buccleuch and Scot, contra Scot of Burnfoot.—See Appendix.
Fol. Dic. v. 2. p. 302. Harcarse, (Improbation and Reduction.) No 526. p. 146.
