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 £5, 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 >> The Earl of Galloway v Maxwell of Hills. [1629] 1 Brn 175 (16 December 1629) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1629/Brn010175-0399.html |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION reported by SIR ROBERT SPOTISWOODE OF PENTLAND.
Subject_2 Such of the following Decision as are of a Date prior to about the year 1620, must have been taken by Spotiswoode from some of the more early Reporters. The Cases which immediately follow have no Date affixed to them by Spotiswoode.
Date: The Earl of Galloway
v.
Maxwell of Hills
16 December 1629 Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In an action of reduction and improbation, pursued by the Earl of Galloway against Maxwell of Hills, after the production was satisfied for both, the defender desired the pursuer's oath de calumnia, if he had just reason to insist in the improbation of the writs produced, thinking thereby, if he were free of the improbation, to let the pursuer have a decreet of reduction against him for notproduction, and to take up his writs produced, and pass from his compearance. The pursuer said he would insist primo loco in his reduction, and, when that were concluded, he would advise if he would take the writs produced to improve, or not. The Lords thought, that, if the defender would crave the pursuer's oath de calumnia, he would be obliged to give it in communi forma, upon the whole libel and reasons thereof together, and not upon any part thereof alone; so that he should only be compelled to swear, if he had just cause to pursue his summons as he had libelled them, but not if he had just cause to improve; which was but a part of his libel, and one reason among many.
Page 167.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting