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 >>
Murray v Blair. [1698] Mor 9675 (26 February 1698)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1698/Mor2309675-032.html Cite as:
[1698] Mor 9675
Intromitting with the Predecessor's Writs and Evidents.
Murray v. Blair
Date: 26 February 1698 Case No. No 32.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Murray of Levistoun having pursued Blair of that Ilk, on the passive titles, for payment of a debt of his father's; which being referred to his oath, he deponed, he being put in the fee of his father's estate at the age of six years old, he meddled with no other papers of that charter-chest, but what concerned the lands disponed to him. Which being advised, the Lords thought this different from Sir William Sharp's case, supra, 28th January 1698, No 31. p. 9673. 2 charter-chest being nomen universitatis, and found him liable. Blair finding the hazard of the decision laying him open to all his father's creditors, he immediately transacts with Levistoun, and gets up the hail process from the Clerks, particularly the oath, and burns them. Boyle of Kelburn, and the other creditors who were attending the event of this cause, give in a bill, craving the process might be secured, and the Clerks who had lent it up ordained to call it back. Some argued, that parties agreed might take up their papers, and do what they pleased with them. Others answered, That a party might take up his bonds, or other writs produced by him, as instructions; but it was pessimi exempli to give up principal oaths, or depositions judicially taken; for these became common evidents to all concerned, and to burn or cancel these might be pursued criminally and punished. The Lords did not determine this, being the last day of the Session; but ordained the Clerks to do diligence against him who had given his receipt for the process, that the Lords might know what had become of it.
Fol. Dic. v. 2. p. 29. Fountainhall, v. 1. p. 829.
