Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR JOHN LAUDER OF FOUNTAINHALL.
The Master of Balmerino, and Mr Hugh Dalrymple, Advocate, v. Sir John Inglis of Cramond
Date: 13 February 1694
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The Master of Balmerino, and Mr Hugh Dalrymple, advocate, against Sir John Inglis of Cramond, in a reduction and improbation of his infeftment on North Berwick. The first dilator was, That his authors were not called,—viz. Sir William Dick's heirs, &c. and the pursuers knowing them, it was a clear No process: yet the Lords allowed them to be cited cum processu, to the same diet to which the first term was taken.
2do. Alleged,—The pursuers' title was not libelled in the beginning, but only in the reason of reduction. The Lords found this informality not sufficient to cast the process; seeing they would be allowed to mend it.
The third material dilator was, That he called for the ground and warrant of their decreet of poinding the ground, obtained before the Sheriff of Haddington in 1652; whereas it was contended, 1mo. That the Sheriff and his clerk ought to be cited; 2do. That, after so long a time, they were only bound to produce the decreet itself, but not the libel and executions. And the Lords found so: for the Lords, after twenty or thirty years, will not burden creditors to produce the executions of apprisings, though they have them in their own custody; and much less executions of summonses, which are kept by others.
