Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
Scottish Court of Session Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Arthur Forbes v Gordon of Park. [1686] 2 Brn 92 (00 February 1686)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1686/Brn020092-0239.html
Cite as: [1686] 2 Brn 92
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
[1686] 2 Brn 92
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR ROGER HOG OF HARCARSE.
Arthur Forbes
v.
Gordon of Park
1686 .February .Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
It being objected against the execution of a summons of reduction, That it was null by the Act 32, Parl. 5, James III Act 74, Parl. 6, James V;—for that, though it was recent, it did not appear to be stamped;—Answered, Sealing and stamping was then required, when few messengers could write their names, and when the stamp contained the initial letters in place of their subscription; but now it is unnecessary, when all messengers do write: And by the Act 139, Parl. 12, James VI, executions are appointed to be subscribed by the executor: And sealing, in several other things, is now in desuetude, Act 117, Parl. 7, James V; Act 29, Parl. 6, Queen Mary; Act 80, Parl. 6, James VI: And the executions of summons seldom bear any vestige of stamping; and many of them do not bear that they are stamped. Replied, Solemnities required by law, in executions, cannot be dispensed with, though some of them seem unnecessary and useless; and all executions of summons ought to be stamped. And the Act 139, Parl. 12, James VI, seems to add subscribing to sealing of executions. The Lords inclined to find the execution null; but did not pronounce their interlocutor.
Page 260, No. 920.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting