Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR JOHN LAUDER OF FOUNTAINHALL.
Rory Dingwall v. Murray of Polrossie
Date: 22 December 1693
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Some of the Lords were clear that the reason of suspension was just and relevant, viz. You have discharged one of the co-cautioners, and so cannot exact the whole from me, but must deduce his share and proportion; because you have precluded me of my relief against him pro tanto. But the generality of the Lords thought, that if it was only pactum de non petendo, and a discharge without any other onerous cause but favour, he could not be hindered to exact the whole from the other correus debendi; but if it was on payment, or receipt of sums of money, more or less, that he could not exact double payment; but thought a gratuitous discharge could not cut off the other's relief. See 10th July 1680, Leith.
The Lords, before answer, ordained the discharge to be produced, that they might see whether it proceeded upon payment or not.
