Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR JOHN LAUDER OF FOUNTAINHALL Subject_2 SUMMER SESSION.
Patrick Inglis of Eastbarns v. His Creditors
Date: 12 November 1684
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Mr Patrick Inglis of Eastbarns gives in a general bill of suspension against his Creditors, upon this ground, That, they being in possession of all his estate, they ought not to have both personal and real execution, especially Cramond, or such creditors as had signed his supersedere. Alleged for Mr John Inglis of Cramond,—That any discharge of personal execution he had given him ten years ago, was conditional, and bearing this express narrative, That it was upon the hopes and expectation of his discovering to them the readiest means for their payment, and to maintain and assist them in the possession; ita est, it is offered to be proven by his oath, that he concurred and joined with James M'Lurg, and the other creditors, and, in the end of June 1677, got Mr John dispossessed. 2do, Offered also to prove by his oath, That Cramond signed that protection conditionally, If all the creditors should likewise consent to the same; which many of them did not. Answered,—That the maxim, causa data causa non secuta cessat obligatio, holds only in causa finali, but not in causa procatarctica et impulsiva, where it is only a bare motive and inducement, as here the hope and expectation of his assistance was; wherein if he failed, he was ungrateful, but it produced no action to annul the suspension and supersedere.
Yet donatio revocatur ob ingratitudinem. And Tiraquellus, ad regulam illam, Cessante Causa, cessat Effectus, and Swinburne, &c. make a great difference inter causam finalem et impulsivam.
The Lords found both the allegeances made for Cramond relevant to be proven by Mr Patrick's oath, to this effect, that, if he acknowledged them, he ought then to forfeit the benefit of the supersedere. Then the other creditors alleged,—That he could not obtain a general suspension against them for securing his person; because they offered to prove, by his oath, that he had a latent hidden estate undiscovered, over and above what they were in possession of.
This the Lords also found relevant; but he shifted to depone thereanent.
