Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR JOHN LAUDER OF FOUNTAINHALL.
Elliots of Lymiecleugh and Panchrist v. Riddel of Haining
1694 and
1695.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
[See the beginning of this Case in Stair, 25th February 1681, Commissioners of the Border against Elliots.]
1694. February 16.—The Lords inclined to think the two decreets reductivè obtained by the Elliots null:—1mo. Because one of them was after a written stop given by the Ordinary till he should hear it at his next side-bar day; and yet he gave a discharge on that stop, on perusing their bill, and finding no new matter in it; for the Lords considered that Haining was in tuto till they were heard again. 2do. The other decreet was precipitantly extracted by one who was both agent and extractor in the process, and who could not deny it, and refused to sign his deposition. But the Lords were straitened; because, if thir two decreets of repetition were taken off the file, then Haining's decreets would stand in force; whereas the Lords desired to lay all the decreets on both sides apart, that, being free, they might see where the material justice or iniquity lay: And, therefore, they superseded to give answer to the loosing of Elliots' decreets till the Ordinary should hear them condescend what nullities they were able to adduce for opening of Haining's decreets against them; for they alleged that, in the border-commission decreet, he sat, though he had a gift of their fines.
Vol. I. Page 610.
1695. January 9.—Crocerig reported Elliots against Riddel of Haining, mentioned 16th February 1694. The Lords superseded the consideration of the expense he had put the Elliots to, in obtaining two decreets of reduction of that bond or decreet, fining them in 5000 merks, till the conclusion of the cause, that they may see where the material justice lies.
Vol. I. Page 656.
[See the final part of the report of this Case, Dictionary, page 16838.]
