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 >> John Jolly v The Laird of Lamington. [1685] 2 Brn 73 (13 February 1685) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1685/Brn020073-0192.html |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR ROGER HOG OF HARCARSE.
Date: John Jolly
v.
The Laird of Lamington
13 February 1685 Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In a process of forthcoming, at the instance of one Jolly, against the Laird of Lamington, as debtor to Robert Baillie, the pursuer's debtor, compearance being made for Theodore Montgomery, who had right by assignation, intimated before the arrestment; the pursuer proved, by the assignee's oath, that assignation was a trust for Robert Baillie's behoof; after which Lamington, having taken a discharge from Theodore, and proponed upon the same, the Lords found, that Lamington was in mala fide to disappoint the arrester, by making voluntary payment to the assignee, after he knew the assignation to be trust, and after the matter was litigious betwixt the assignee and arrester; and therefore decerned in the forthcoming.—February 1685.
It was afterwards alleged for Lamington, That the discharge was granted before Theodore gave his oath; and Lamington protested against his deponing, as being denuded. Answered, The defender was in mala fide, after the arrestment, to take a discharge, and ought to have suspended upon multiplepoinding; 2. The defender's oath of calumny is craved, that the discharge is not of the date it bears, and, being falsum in data quam præ se fert, must at best be looked upon but as blank in the date; so that the defender must prove it was of a date anterior to Theodore's deponing. The Lords sustained both replies; and found, that the defender could not take a discharge in prejudice of the pursuer, after the matter was litigious.—February 1685.
Page 16, No. 84.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting
