Elizabeth Young and her Husband v. The Earl of Bute
Date: 13 December 1716 Case No. No 5.
Second diligence against a peer, how executed.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The pursuer's grandfather being creditor to Stewart of Kilkattan, he assigns the debt in trust to the deceased Kelburn upon his backbond; and accordingly, he did adjudge, in anno 1681, for the accumulate sum of L. 13,300 Scots; and, after his decease, the Earl of Glasgow, his son, corroborates the bonds, but thereafter consents to a disposition of the lands of Kilkattan, made by the laird thereof, in favour of the Earl of Bute; whereupon the pursuer, as having right from her grandfather, did insist against the Earl of Glasgow, in respect he contravened the obligements in his said back-bond; and in this process a diligence being granted against the Earl of Bute for exhibiting the said disposition, and the first diligence being returned, and the second granted, this being in effect a caption, which could not be put in execution against the Earl of Bute, being a Peer, a petition is given in for the pursuer, craving that the Lords would adhibit a remedy, and founding on a late practice against the Earl of Kincardine, where the Lords assigned a certain day to exhibit the writs called under a penalty equal to the damage that the pursuers incur through the failure in exhibiting; and, there being no answer to the petition.
‘The Lords grant diligence to the petitioner to cite the Earl to compear within three weeks, or thereby, to exhibit the writs called for, under the penalty of L. 50 Sterling; but prejudice of the petitioner's claim of further damages, as accords of the law.’
Act. John Dundass.Alt. Dun. Forbes.Clerk, ut supra.
Bruce, v. 2. No 43. p. 58.
