Subject_1 ARBITRATION. Subject_2 Formalities of the Deed of Submission and Decree-Arbitral.
Wilson v. Haddo
Date: 30 June 1694 Case No. No 46.
A decree-arbitral sustained, (as in No 37.) though pronounced in ipso terminum
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In a cause between Wilson and Haddo, it fell to be debated, where a submission bore that they should determine betwixt and the 6th of January, if it was exclusive of the 6th or inclusive, seeing the decreet-arbitral was on the 6th.—The Lords were clear, that in all these favourable cases, the day betwixt and which it was to be done, was included; so that the decreet pronounced on that day was valid and sufficient, seeing interest reipublicæ ut lites sopiantur; even as if I be bound to pay a sum betwixt and such a day, under a penalty or forfeiture of the case if I fail, I have that whole day introduced in my favours. But what made the difficulty here, was, they had referred the meaning of parties to Haddo's oath, and he had deponed that it was understood, the decreet was to be given before the 6th, and so was not to be included. Yet the Lords found ut supra, notwithstanding of the oath, which was not in facto but in jure, on his opinion of the thing, and so was only juramentum credulitatis: And, least it should be pretended to be a contradiction, they declared the oath consistent with their interlocutor.
