Subject_1 ARBITRATION. Subject_2 Reduction of Decree-Arbitral.
Hardie v. Hardie
Date: 18 December 1724 Case No. No 66.
To allege that the arbiters had decided upon grounds which were not true in fact, is no relevant ground of suspension or reduction. The exception of false-hood, in act 1695, regards only the falsehood or forgery of the submission or decree-arbitral.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
A decreet-arbitral being suspended, upon the allegeance, that some facts mentioned in the decreet, as the foundation of the decerniture, were utterly false, which was offered to be proven by the oaths of the arbiters themselves; the Lords refused to sustain this as a reason of suspension, though it was urged, that the suspender was founded in the very words of the regulations 1695, allowing decreets-arbitral to be called in question, upon the head of “corruption, bribery, and falsehood, alleged against the judges arbitrators who pronounced the same,” where the word falsehood being directed personally against the judges arbitrators, cannot be understood in any other sense, than their pronouncing decreet-arbitral upon false suggestions.
