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 >>
William Veitch v Peter Pallat and Thomas Wilson. [1681] 3 Brn 388 (00 January 1678)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1681/Brn030388-0536.html
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR JOHN LAUDER OF FOUNTAINHALL Subject_2 SUMMER SESSION.
William Veitch v. Peter Pallat and Thomas Wilson
1678 and 1681.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
1678. July 24.—In an improbation, pursued by Peter Pallat and Thomas Wilson, his factor, against William Veitch, for producing a gift of one Sanderson's escheat, granted to David Rodger in the time of the English usurpation, when the back-bond and conditions of the gift were inserted in the body thereof:
It was alleged,— 1st, That, being in publica custodia, it needed not be produced; but only condescend upon the date. Answered,—That brocard held only where the principal was left at the Register, but not where they got the principal; and the Register only keeped a copy, as in seasines, reversions, hornings, gifts of escheat, &c.
2 do, alleged,—That, in a former debate betwixt the parties, it was produced in process, and the Act bears so, which is probatio probata, so that it needs not to be produced now. Answered,— Nullo modo relevat to stop certification, if it be not produced now; else it were easy to steal up a false paper, after production, and thereby shun the improving thereof.
Yet it was informed, that, in a case between Grant of Ballindalloch and Grant of Dalvey, this same allegeance was sustained and found sufficient to stop certification. See Stair, 22d January 1662 , Earl of Marr.
Vol. I. Page 10.
1681. January 20.—Veitch and Pallat's case was advised, and Veitch preferred, because Pallat's papers, adduced by him in modam probationis to instruct Sanderson had a visible estate, and that the bond was for anterior furnished wine, were amissing. But, being afterwards found, the Lords, on a bill given in by Thomas Wilson, Pallat's factor, stopped all till they had fully advised the probation.
