If the not inserting a witness, before the act 1681, be suppliable?
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The nullity objected to an old bond of thirlage, of date long before the 1681, and subscribed by notaries, That although four witnesses were subscribing, yet one of them was not inserted in the body of the deed, was found not suppliable, January 26, 1738.
Some of the Lords were of a different opinion: They thought that the subscription of the witness by his own hand was as effectual an inserting of him, as the naming him in the deed by the hand of the writer would have been; and that therefore the omission in this case was no less suppliable by condescendence on his designation, than if his name had been inserted in the bond; and by a petition, wherein that reason was urged, the point was kept open.
Vide July 14, 1739, Tit. Thirlage, No. 77. p. 16017.
