Extractors are servants to the Clerks of Session, removeable at pleasure.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The Clerks of Session, in February 1739, having made a table of regulations to be observed by the Extractors, and the Extractors having refused to comply with these regulations, six of them were dismissed by the Clerks, because of their obstinacy. This produced a remonstrance from the Extractors to the Court, complaining of the regulations as hard upon them, and insisting that they were possessed of a standing office in the Court, that it was their freehold, of which they could not be divested except upon malversation, tried in a court of law. The Court first found, “That the Clerks of Session cannot arbitrarily remove their servants, the Extractors, without cause.” But the Clerks, in a reclaiming petition, having set furth, that the extracting of acts and decreets is a part of their office; that it is their subscription which gives faith and authority to an extract, and that the Extractor is really and truly their amanuensis; that the Extractors are not even members of the College of Justice; and that, as the Clerks are liable for all the writings produced in Court, of which the Extractor must have the custody, when employed in extracting acts and decreets, it would be extremely hard upon the Clerks, if they could not turn out their servants upon suspicion, when, in most cases, it is impracticable to bring a regular proof of malversing.
“The Court altered, and found the Extractors to be servants removeable at pleasure.”
