Inhibition sustained, which bore only “because the Lords have seen a horning,” without mentioning that the bond on which the horning proceeded was produced.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The Creditors of Langton, struck at by an inhibition led by Lockhart of Carnwath, now in the person of William Scot of Thirlestain, objected that it was null; as bearing only “because the Lords had seen a horning,” without production of the bond whereon the horning proceeded.
Pleaded for the pursuer, A horning, which could not have been got without a bond, is evidence of the debt. Inhibitions pass on decreets without their grounds; on summonses; and against heirs on general charges; and there are condescended on from the register 176 inhibitions on simple hornings.
Pleaded for the defenders, A horning referring to a bond is no proof of any debt without production of the bond; a decreet imports an obligation; inhibitions are granted on dependences, on which decreet must follow; and have been allowed on general charges, because it was thought an heir could not be summoned to make a dependence within the year of deliberation; but it is contrary to all rule to grant them on a horning; and the practice, as irregular, ought not to be sustained.
Observed, That practice only determined on what foundation this diligence might proceed; as it was difficult to know on what principles this was settled at first.
The Lords repelled the objection.
Reporter, Drummore.Act. A. Pringle.Alt. J. Stewart.
Fol. Dic. v. 3. p. 321. D. Falconer, v. 2. No 216. p. 260.
*** See Lord Kilkerran's account of this case in the two last paragraphs of No 55. p. 6989.
