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!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Ranken v James Watson, John Mill, &c. [1633] 1 Brn 340 (14 February 1633) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1633/Brn010340-0903.html |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR GEORGE AUCHINLECK OF BALMANNO.
Date: Ranken
v.
James Watson, John Mill, &c
14 February 1633 Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Ranken, in Dundie, pursues James Watson, John Mill, and certain other persons in Montross, for certain sums of money alleged resting owing by them, conform to their subscribed account, dated in anno 1608. It is alleged, That the count produced cannot prove against the defenders, because it wants witnesses. To supply this defect, the verity of the subscription is referred to the defender's oath. It was duplied, That it was not relevant to refer the verity of the subscription to the defender's oath; but the pursuer must likewise refer the verity of the debt to their oaths, as was decided betwixt Jack and Auld. The Lords found the exception and duply relevant.
Page 217.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting
