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!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Scottish Court of Session Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> John Horsburghe v John Maxwell. [1649] 1 Brn 428 (6 December 1649)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1649/Brn010428-1148.html

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


[1649] 1 Brn 428      

Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by ROBERT MACGILL, LORD FOORD.

John Horsburghe
v.
John Maxwell

Date: 6 December 1649

Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy

Mr John Horsburgh pursuing, by bill, John Maxwell before the parliament, is remitted to the session: where the said Mr John Horsburgh, having delivered to the said John some Irish bonds, addebted by the folks of Duntreath to his umquhile father, craves redelivery of the bonds, or else that he pay him the sums contained therein; but it was excepted, that he, being an advocate, was not tied to prove redelivery, affirming that he had given them back to him. It was replied that he took a factory for the pursuit, and so was not in the case of an advocate. He duplied that it was only a procuration taken from the said Mr John, as use is, because he was a residenter in England. The Lords examined witnesses ex officio, and found it a factory; and, having taken the pursuer's oath whether or not he had gotten back the papers, he denied the same; whereupon the said John Maxwell, defender, was decerned to deliver those bonds, or else to make them up by proving the tenour thereof, and make them as effectual, as concerning the responsality of the parties, as if they were presently redelivered; and, for that purpose, gave him three whole sessions after this, to insist thereon. And herein it was disputed amongst the Lords, anent the probation of the tenour of the bond, how difficile it might be; both in respect of discharges, and in respect of the common rule of law, that instrumentum nominis apud debitorem repertum presumitur rescriptum et solutum.

Page 81.

The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting     


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1649/Brn010428-1148.html