Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Agnes and Jean Watsons, pursue John Scot in Belford. Alleged, A disposition was null by the late act of Parliament in 1681, because it did not design the writer and filler up of the witnesses' names and designations at the tail of the writ, and that it was not suppliable now by condescending on the writer. “The Lords found it no nullity that the inserter of the witnesses' names and designations was not mentioned nor insert.” It were a more material nullity if the filler up of the date, the sum, the creditor's name, or terms of payment, or marginal notes, were not expressed.
Fountainhall. v. 1. p. 246.*** P. Falconer reports this case:
Watson having charged Scot for payment of a sum of money contained in a bond, and Scot having suspended upon this reason, That the bond was null, in regard it appeared by ocular inspection, That the creditor's name, designation, date, and inserting of the witnesses, was with an other hand than the writer of the body, and that the inserter was not designed; and it being answered, That the charger offered to condescend upon the inserter, who was one of the co-notaries subscribers of the bond; it was answered, That by the late act of parliament 1681, bonds are declared null, where the writer is not designed, and by the said act if is declared, That the said nullity is not to be supplied by condescending ex post facto. The Lords sustained the bond, and found, That the act of parliament extended to the writer of the bond, but noways to the inserter of the date and witnesses, which they found might be supplied by a condescendence.
P. Falconer, No. 70. p. 47.*** Sir P. Home also reports this case:
Margaret Scot having disponed a tenement of land in Selkirk to Agnes and Jean Watsons, and they having pursued John Scot as representing the said Margaret for implement of the disposition; alleged for the defender, That the disposition was null, seeing it appears by ocular inspection that the disposition has been drawn blank as to the person's name to whom it was to be granted, and blank as to the date, witnesses, and their designations, and filled up with another hand; and it being declared by the 5th act, Parl. 1681, that all writs subscribed hereafter, where the writer and witnesses are not designed, shall be null, and cannot be supplied by condescending upon the writer, or the designations of the writer and witnesses; answered, That it is evident by the disposition itself, that one of the notaries who suscribed for the disponer was inserter of the pursuer's name, date, designations, and the names of the witnesses in the several blanks, which is sufficient to take off that nullity, that the inserter of the date and witnesses, and the parties' names are not designed, and is equivalent as if the party disponer had written and insert the same herself. The Lords sustained the disposition, and found that the act of Parliament extended only to the writer of the bond, but not to the inserter of the date and witnesses, which they found might be supplied by a condescendence.
Sir P. Home, v. 1. No. 508.*** Harcarse also reports this case:
A disposition being quarrelled as null upon the act 5. Parl. 1681, for that the writer who insert the date and witnesses was not designed;
The Lords found, That the naming and designing the writer of the body of the disposition, did answer the design of the act of Parliament; and that it was not necessary to name and design the inserter of the date and witnesses, though that was done by another hand than the writer of the body of the right.
Harcarse, No. 587. p. 222.
*** The like found 19th June 1722, Laird of Edmonston against Lady Wolmet. (See Appendix.)
