Subject_1 ARBITRATION. Subject_2 Formalities of the Deed of Submission and Decree-Arbitral.
Earl of Crawford v. Alexander Bruce
Date: 4 January 1699 Case No. No 48.
Found in conformity with No 42. p. 645.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Arbruchall reported the Earl of Crawford and Alexander Bruce, son to Broomhall. It was a reduction of a decreet-arbitral as subscribed of a false date, in so far as it was not signed till after the day to which the submission was confined was elapsed, yet it is made of an ante-date.—Answered, Esto, That were true, yet primordium habet veritatis ; for the minute, which is the warrant, was truly subscribed by the arbitrators within the time prefixed.——The Lords found the minute being subscribed within the time, was sufficient, though extended thereafter, providing there was no more in the extension than in the minute, and the date at the head of the minute must be presumed to be the date of the subscription, unless it were redargued; for omnia præsumuntur alemniter acta, et interpretatio sumenda ut actus valeat. See 27th March 1633 Forrester contra Gourlay, No. 42. p. 645. It was here also debated, but not determined, whether a decreet-arbitral opened upon a nullity, falls in toto, or be like an articulatus libellus only quoadthat article, as is provided for securities of decreets in foro by the late regulations in 1695; and though decreets-arbitral are there exempted from being reduced upon iniquity, but only upon corruption and falshood, yet if that will exclude nullities.
