BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
You are here:BAILII >>
Databases >>
Scottish Court of Session Decisions >>
Nisbet v Whitelaw. [1626] Mor 3982 (1 July 1626)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1626/Mor1003982-002.html Cite as:
[1626] Mor 3982
Subject_1 EXHIBITION AD DELIBERANDUM. Subject_2 SECT. I.
Competent to all sorts of heirs.
Nisbet v. Whitelaw
Date: 1 July 1626 Case No. No 2.
Exhibition ad deliberandum may be pursued after the annus deliberandi.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
One Whitelaw, being pursued at the instance of Mr Patrick Nisbet and his bairns begotten upon his wife, daughter to Mr John Arthur, for exhibition of certain writs and bonds, pertaining to the said Mr John, and which they desired to be produced and delivered to them, to the effect that they might advise and deliberate, if they would enter heirs to their said umquhile grand-father, or not; in this pursuit the defenders compearing, alleged, that this pursuit, for delivery of evidents to the pursuer, to the effect she might advise, if she would enter heir, ought not to be sustained, because albeit an apparent heir might call for production of writs, yet the delivery thereof, or decreet being given for delivery, makes the pursuer heir; so that the craving of the writs to be delivered ad hunc effectum, viz. to advise, if she would enter heir, ought not to be sustained. This allegeance was repelled against the inhibition, and the pursuit was sustained by the Lords, to crave the production, to the foresaid effect, albeit it was year and day past, since Mr John Arthur's decease, whereby the defenders alleged, that the pursuer could not crave exhibition, for the foresaid effect, to deliberate, seeing the time given by the law to advise was expired; and in respect whereof she could not pursue, but to the effect that she might enter heir, which was repelled as said is, against the exhibition, but was reserved after the evidents were produced, to be disputed against the delivery thereof.
Act. Stuart.Alt. Hope.Clerk, Hay
Vide July 26, 1626, betwixt the same parties, voce Reduction.
The like was thereafter sustained. July 18, 1626. Innes contra ———, where the Lords sustained the pursuit, for exhibition, for the same effect, the pursuer being major.
For the Defender, Hope.Clerk, Hay.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 283. Durie, 206.
