A missive letter not holograph found probative, the party acknowledging his subscription.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
One having become bound by a missive letter not holograph, as cautioner for the rent of a house during the tacksman's possession, and being pursued before the Bailies of Edinburgh upon the said letter, the Bailies found that the letter, not being holograph, was not obligatory; whereupon the pursuer having referred his allegation to the defender's oath, and the defender having deponed, that he had agreed to be cautioner for one year only, but having in his oath acknowleged his having subscribed the letter, adding that he had signed it without reading that part of it which bound him during the tenant's possession, the Bailies “Found him liable for the whole years in terms of the letter.”
In a suspension of this decree, “The letters were found orderly proceeded,” though several of the Lords were of a different opinion.
See this decision justified, December 20, 1746, Foggo against Milliken, infra.
