If you found BAILII useful today, could you please make a contribution?
Your donation will help us maintain and extend our databases of legal information. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month donates, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR JOHN LAUDER OF FOUNTAINHALL.
Ross of Tillysnaught and Middleton v. William Turner, Notary
Date: 18 December 1694
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Ross of Tillysnaught and Middleton, against William Turner, notary, anent a testament. The Lords, having considered the reasons of reduction, with the probation led, they assoilyied from the reduction, and sustained the testament as a valid and probative writ. It was urged, that the witnesses were inserted at the head in a preface or title to the testament; which was both suspicious, unusual, and contrary to the 173d Act, 1593, and 5th Act, 1681, requiring the witnesses to be at the end of the writ. This was thought to be of a dangerous preparative: Yet here the Lords repelled it, because it appeared it was read to the defunct; though some of them did not remember they heard the word heir and executor in the title read; and farther, the body of the testament began, “the said Robert Middleton.” There were sundry other objections against this testament, which the Lords repelled.
Vol. I. Page 651.
[It would appear, from the following intimation of a protest, by Turner, for remeid of law, that the Lords, by a subsequent interlocutor, found the testament null.]
1707. July 31.—William Turner, notary, protested for remeid of law against Alexander Ross of Tillysnaught, his decreet, reducing Robert Middleton's testament; and that the interlocutor was not signed for several days after the sentence was pronounced, contrary to the Act of Parliament 1693.
Vol. II. Page 389.
[See the subsequent action raised by Ross against Turner, infra, 1710, November 14.]
