In a mutual contract when one of the parties had subscribed by initials, a suspension at his instance was refused, unless he would prove that his practice was to subscribe ad longum.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
By contract betwixt James Forrest and John Marshall, the said John is obliged to serve Mr Forrest in his pin-manufactory, and not to absent himself therefrom; for which he is to have the wages condescended on. Marshall deserting the work, Forrest charges him on the contract. He suspends, on this reason, that it is null, and nowise probative against him, because it is only subscribed by him wtth the two initial letters of his name, whereas it should have either been signed ad lonrum, or by a notary for him, unless the subscription were astructed by the witnesses, as was found, 14th February 1633, Grierson against Grierson, No. 3. p. 16802. Answered, No law obliges a man to subscribe ad longum; only it has been judged convenient, to furnish more ground to cognosce it when quarrelled of falsehood; and if one may sign by the initial letter of his Christian name, why not also of his sirname? 2do, Whatever may be in writs that only bind ex una latere; yet in mutual contracts, the one fortifies the other; and if the suspender were craving implement of this contract, the other party who had subscribed ad longum could not obtrude this nullity, that you have only signed by initial letters, for it cannot subsist on the one side, and claudicate on the other: And the decision cited is in the case of a discharge, and even sustained that way of subscribing if it had been his usual manner so to do. The Lords repelled the objection, and sustained the contract, unless the suspender would prove he used to subscribe ad longum; reserving improbation, as accords.
