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 >>
Sir Donald Bain of Tulloch v Sir Robert Gordon of Gordonston. [1696] Mor 6719 (7 February 1696)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1696/Mor1606719-146.html Cite as:
[1696] Mor 6719
Title to Exclude. - When Proponable. - What Title Sufficient. - What the Effect.
Sir Donald Bain of Tulloch v. Sir Robert Gordon of Gordonston
Date: 7 February 1696 Case No. No 146.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In a process between Sir Donald Bain of Tulloch and Sir Robert Gordon of Gordonston, for reduction and improbation of his rights on the lands of Arboll, Sir Robert at first produced three apprisings; then he took them up all but one, and Tulloch craved certification contra non producta. He alleged, you cannot, because I exclude you with what I have already produced. Answered, I am not bound to debate the validity of my title till the production be satisfied, else this were to discuss the reasons before avisandum; and if you succumbed in this, then you might drop in the second, and so a third and fourth, and renew the debate on every one of them, by which the production should never be got closed, nor certification obtained. The Lords found he might debate why his first production excluded the pursuer, and so needed to produce no more; but if that were not found sufficient to exclude the pursuer's title, then certification was to be granted, if he made no further production, without allowing him again to renew the debate that he had produced sufficiently, and needed not produce any more; else they might draw in the discussing the reasons of reduction before the avisandum, contrary to all form, and debate on every single writ they produced, which might spin out reductions in infinitum. See Lauderdale against Biggar, No 141. 6716.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 451. Fountainhall, v. 1. p. 709.
