Judicial Steps, how far under the Power of Parties, to be retracted, altered, or amended.
Douglas v. Cockburn
Date: 23 December 1693 Case No. No 285.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In the pursuit Douglas against Cockburn in Haddington, for payment of a debt contained in his father's bond, on the passive titles, referred to his oath; and one of them being as intromitter with the rents of his father's lands, he deponed he did intromit, but by a singular title, as having acquired some adjudications led against his father's estate; and he being interrogated, what he paid for these adjudications; because, by the 62d act 1661, they are declared redeemable from the apparent heir, within ten years, for the sums he paid, and so he was bound to communicate the eases he got from the adjudger; he declined to depone thereanent, in regard the pursuer was only a personal creditor, and had done no real diligence; and he was not bound, hoc loco, to answer that interrogatory anent the eases, it not being libelled, but they behoved to raise a new process of declarator thereon: But the Lords, on a bill and answers, found it unnecessary to multiply processes, and that it naturally occurred from his own oath, who, to shun the passive title of uplifting the mails and duties of his father's lands, did cloath himself with these adjudications; and that he ought to be re-examined, and answer that interrogatory in this same process; though formerly they used to remit them to a new one, which the Lords thought unnecessary, and resolved to follow this method in time coming.
Fol. Dic. v. 2. p. 198. Fountainhall, v. 1. p. 583.
