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 Carstairs v Christian, Jennet, and Grizell Carstairs, his Sisters. [1673] 1 Brn 691 (22 July 1673) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1673/Brn010691-1652.html |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR PETER WEDDERBURN, LORD GOSFORD.
Date: James Carstairs
v.
Christian, Jennet, and Grizell Carstairs, his Sisters
22 July 1673 Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In a reduction of a decreet-arbitral, at the instance of the said James, whereby he was decerned to pay the sum of twelve thousand merks to his sisters, upon a reason of fraud and circumvention, in so far as he was induced to submit to the arbitrators, by concealing and keeping up of a disposition made to his father, of some lands and acres, which, by the said decreet, was conveyed to him, and for which he was decerned to pay the said sum; whereas if he had known of that right, it was so clear and absolute, that he needed not to have submitted to have paid any thing for his right to that land:—
It was answered, That it was offered to be proved by the arbitrators and communers, that his father's disposition was made known to him the time of the submission, and was read in all their presence.
It was replied, That his private knowledge was not probable by witnesses, but by his own oath, and that the arbitrators, being concerned to maintain their own decreet, could not be witnesses.
The Lords did sustain the answer to be proven by witnesses and by the arbitrators and communers, seeing the reason of fraud libelled, was craved to be proven by witnesses, to take away a decreet; and, therefore, a fortiori, the allegeance of private knowledge was probable that same way, and before the same witnesses.
Page 364.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting
