Subject_1 ARBITRATION. Subject_2 Arbiters may be compelled to determine.
Walter Cairncross of Hillslop v. James Hunter
Date: 8 February 1704 Case No. No 15.
Found, that an arbiter cannot renounce a submission accepted of, since he can be charged with horning determine.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Hillslop having obtained a decreet against Hunter his tenant, for some rents; he suspends, and when the suspension comes to be discussed by the course of the roll, Hunter alleges, You cannot infift, because the affair stands submitted. —Answered, One of the arbiters, by a writ under his hand, has declared he will not meddle in the concern any more, so it is deserted and expired.—-Replied, Having no definite time filled up therein, it lasts year and day from its date; and the renouncing of his arbiter, at his interposition and desire, cannot make it expire; 1mo, Because he can be charged with horning, to meet and give out his decreet, 2do, The other arbiter, with the concourse of the oversman, may determine without him.—Duplied, The other party's design is not that the affair should come to any sentence or determination, but to postpone Hillslop in diligence, while the tenant is vergens ad inopiam, and putting all his goods and stocking away; so that before the year expire, there will be nothing left to affect. ——The Lords found the submission was yet standing, notwithstanding one of the arbiter was prevailed on to renounce it, and that the charger should have adverted, that a shorter day was filled up in the submission; which he having neglected, the Lords could not help him.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 49. Fountainhall, v. 2. p. 220.
