Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR JOHN LAUDER OF FOUNTAINHALL. Subject_2 I sat in the Outer-House this week.
James Forrest v. John Craig
Date: 26 February 1709
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In a competition for the maills and duties of some tenements in Edinburgh, betwixt James Forrest and John Craig, servant to Sir Walter Pringle, advocate, upon two adjudications, Craig objected,—Your adjudication is null; because there is a day assigned for the debtor to produce a progress, and yet the decreet is of the same day's date; which Forrest observing to have been a mere error and mistake in the extractor, in making the decreet of the same date with the act assigning a day to the defender to give in a progress, in terms of the Act of Parliament in 1672; and that the minutes and warrants were right and tight; therefore he, at his own hand, takes up his decreet, and causes mend it; and then, reproducing it in the clerk's hand, he competes. But it being challenged as not the decreet of adjudication which he had made use of before, he acknowledged the same, but affirmed he might lawfully mend it, conform to the principal minutes and warnings of process in the clerk's office.
The Lords found his adjudication null; seeing he should have applied to them, representing the mistake, and craved their authority to have been interposed to the emendation thereof.
Then he, by a bill, craved the Lords would allow him yet to extract a new decreet of adjudication, conform to the true minutes and warrants.
This the Lords also refused, to deter any from manufacturing of writs, or putting their hands to them, without warrant of a judge; and remembered they had done the like some years ago, betwixt Mr David Dewar, advocate, and David French, writer in Edinburgh.
