Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR JOHN LAUDER OF FOUNTAINHALL.
Straiton of Lauriston v. Alexander Arbuthnot of Knox
Date: 29 January 1695
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
This was a reduction of a certification in an improbation, 1mo. Because it did not mention the assigning of the first term for production. Answered,— Though the extractor has omitted this, yet it was truly done; and he now produces the act for the first term, which was lying amongst the warrants. The Lords found this informality was no nullity.
2do. That it having been alleged, The writs against which Knox craved certification were in his own hands,—he was ordained to depone thereanent; and yet the certification was extracted in thir terms:“” against all writs which be shall deny the having of:” which could not be till he had first deponed. Answered,—He was never required, nor a term assigned; and he is yet willing, in fortification of his decreet, to depone; and it cannot be presumed he had their rights.
The Lords found this sufficient to open the decreet, and repone Lauriston against the same.
