Subject_1 ARBITRATION. Subject_2 Arbiters may be compelled to determine.
Cheisly v. Calderwood
Date: 30 June 1699 Case No. No 14.
A party submitter petitioned the Lords to compel an arbiter who had accepted, to meet and determine. There happened to be no clause of registration; The Lords declared, if there had, the arbiter might have been charged with horning, but they would not supply the detect.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Sir Robert Cheisly, late provost of Edinburgh, gave in a petition against Mr William Calderwood, advocate, complaining, That though the said Mr William had accepted to be his arbiter, in a submission betwixt him and Cheisly of Dalry, his nephew, he refused to meet, though the term prefixed was near expired; therefore craved the Lords might ordain him to meet and determine, conform to the title of the common law, de receptis qui arbitrium in se receperunt ut sententiam dicant.—Answered by Sheriff Calderwood, That the Provost's claim did not appear so clear and legal, and for that and other reasons he resolved to let the submission fall.——The Lords considered, if there had been a clause of registration he might have been charged with horning to meet and determine; but this being omitted, the Lords refused to interpose in this case, or supply their defect.
