If subscribing a deed on all the pages, is de solemnitate necessary?
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
It being objected to Grizel Williamson's bond of provision, that the same was null as consisting of three pages, and only the last page signed by the granter; the Lords, in respect that the bond was holograph, and appeared to be all written unico contextu, and that there was no suspicion of any sort against the deed, “Repelled the objection.”
That the act of Parliament 1696 had nothing to do with this question, was plain, as concerning only writs written upon different sheets of paper; and the decision between M'Pherson of Killihuntly and M'Pherson of Dalready in 1723, where a discharge of a reversion was found null, in respect it was subscribed by the party only upon the last page, although the writing consisted of no more than two pages on the same leaf, and no suspicion lay to the deed, was greatly censured.
It was at the same time doubted by some of the Lords, whether the signing of each page was not de solemnitate necessary; in which case, although no suspicion lay to it, the want of that solemnity would void the deed, without distinction between deeds holograph and deeds not holograph. And as a ground for this doubt, it was observed, that if it was not de solemnitate necessary, the grossest fraud might with great ease be committed in writs not holograph. For suppose a deed to be written on five pages, that is, upon one full sheet, and one page of a second sheet, one has no more to do, but to throw away the first sheet altogether, and upon a new sheet, to fill up a writing very different from the true one.
Nevertheless, the Lords found as above, being of opinion, that the subscription of all the pages or sheets of a deed was not requisite de solemnitate by the act 1696.
