[1683] Mor 12326
Subject_1 PROOF.
Subject_2 DIVISION I. Allegeances how relevant to be proved.
Subject_3 SECT. III. What Proof relevant to take away Writ.
Earl Southesk
v.
Simpson and Reddie
1683 .February .
Case No.No 98.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In a pursuit for the price of a quantity of victual, conform to a contract of vendition thereof,
Alleged for the buyer, That a part of the victual was not delivered.
Answered for the pursuer, That he offered to prove delivery of the whole, partly scripto, partly by witnesses.
Replied for the defender, That witnesses could not be allowed to take away the writ as to the obligement for delivery of the victual, more than they could be allowed to prove payment of the price; 2do, By the late act of Parliament probation of bargains by witnesses prescribes in five years.
The Lords demurred upon this point, if the obligement in the contract to deliver so much victual, could be taken away without writ or oath; but they found, that the act of Parliament related to verbal bargains, not constituted scripto.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting