Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR JOHN LAUDER OF FOUNTAINHALL Subject_2 SUMMER SESSION. 1684 and 1685.
Sir Ludovick Gordon of Gordonston v. Farquhar
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
1684. February 5.—The Lords sustained the improbation of the back-bond produced, by way of exception. Though it was acknowledged to be his real subscription, yet it was alleged to be false in data. Now the date in several cases is essential; e.g. the antedating writs truly subscribed on death-bed, to make them in liege poustie, or to make them prior to another's diligence. But their condescendence that he was in Edinburgh that day, whereas the writ bears to be signed at Aberdeen, was alleged not to be relevant, seeing a man may in a summer's day be in both these places in one day, it being but seventy miles' distance. Vide 18th November 1685.
Vol. I. Page 266.
1685. November 18 and 19.—The case of Farquhar, postmaster in Aberdeen, against Sir Ludovick Gordon of Gordonston, mentioned 5th February 1684, was debated and advised.
The Lords found the back-bond produced by Sir Ludovick upon Sir Robert Farquhar's estate null, because it was proven that it was only a blank sheet of paper subscribed, and the tenor of a back bond afterwards filled up in it; and that the date bears at Edinburgh, and yet he was at Aberdeen at the time; and that it had been retired.
It was alleged there was a true back-bond, but it was lost.
