Payment being made, who understood to have advanced the Money.
William Nisbet of Dirleton v. Marion Johnston, Relict of Alexander Wood
Date: 26 July 1711 Case No. No 205.
Discharges taka by a tenant, of debts owing by his master to a third person, were not allowed to he tenant in his accourus, in respect the discharges bore that the money was received from the master himself, although the tenant produced with the discharges an ex post facto declaration under the creditor's hand, that he was paid by the tenants.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In the compt and reckoning at the instance of Dirleton against Marion Johnston, as representing Jasper Johnston of Warieston, her father, who had been tacksman of some lands belonging to the Laird of Craigintinny, the pursuer's father; the defender craved allowance of two debts she alleged were paid by her father for Craigintinny to the Laird of Balmadies, conform to two discharges produced by the defender, the Lords refused to allow this article, in respect the discharges bore, that the money was received from Craigintinny himself; albeit the defender produced a declaration under Balmadie's hand ex post facto, that he received the money from Jasper Johnston, and alleged. That the taking the discharges in Craigintinny's name is no argument that the payments were made by him, seeing, 1mo, The discharges remained in the custody of Jasper Johnston, who had it in his power to have retired them, and taken in lieu thereof an assignation from the creditor; which he scrupled as little to grant, as the declaration aforesaid; 2do, Tenants usually take discharges of cesses, ministers' stipends, or the like, in their master's name; and yet having these in their custody, never fail to get allowance of the same as so much paid of their rent; so that Craigintinny's name has been inserted only for the more easy expediting of the account betwixt him and Jasper his tacksman.
