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 >> James Mackgill v Robert Keith and Wm. Napier. [1632] 1 Brn 192 (20 June 1632) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1632/Brn010192-0445.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: James Mackgill
v.
Robert Keith and Wm Napier.
20 June 1632 Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Mr James Mackgill having arrested in Robert Keith's hands £1000, addebted by him to Mr Alexander King, sought to have the same made forthcoming. Compeared Mr William Napier, and alleged, He had an assignation of that same sum from Mr Alexander, which was intimated long before the pursuer's arrestment. Replied, The said sum was not assignable, because it was affected with a condition, viz. that the debtor should not be obliged to pay it before Mr Alexander had purged all inhibitions served against him, which might affect a tenement of land, bought from him by Robert Keith, whereof the said £1000 was a part of the price: Likeas the pursuer offered to prove that his inhibition was the only inhibition then resting unpurged, which the said Robert knew and meant when he gave that bond. Duplied, The institution did not alter the nature of the bond, which, being moveable, might be assigned; and let the pursuer reduce the disposition upon his inhibition. The Lords found the exception relevant, and preferred the assignee to the arrester, without prejudice of his action upon his inhibition.
Page 178.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting