Colin Mackenzie of Rosend v. The Inhabitants of Burntisland
Date: 21 November 1712 Case No. No 202.
Defenders in an action having proponed improbation against the execution of the summons, the pursuers were not found obliged to abide by the executions sub periculo falsi, in respect the messenger at the bar abode by his own execution; and the defenders were not allowed a term to improve, unless they would propone the exception of falsehood peremptorie.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In the action of abstracted multures at the instance of Colin Mackenzie and his authors, against the Inhabitants of Burntisland, the defenders having proponed improbation, against the execution of the summons, and consigned L. 40, as is usual, and craved that the pursuers might abide by sub periculo falsi; and the pursuers having brought the messenger to the bar, who abode by the execution; the Lords found, That in respect the messenger a public servant, had abidden by his own execution sub periculo falsi, the pursuers were not obliged to abide by the same.
Thereafter, 2d December 1712, the Lords found that the defenders, albeit they had consigned the L. 40, could not be allowed a term to improve the execution, unless they propone the exception of falsehood peremptorie.
