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 Sibbald v John Sibbald. [1776] Mor 16906 (18 January 1776)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1776/Mor3816906-140.html Cite as:
[1776] Mor 16906
What, if one of the instrumentary witnesses is dead, and that the only other instrumentary witness makes oath that the subscription by himas witness is truly his subscription, but adds, that he did not see the granter of the deed adhibit his subscription?
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In the question between these parties, one reason of reduction insisted upon was, that the disposition challenged is in itself void in law, as neither being subscribed by the granter, before two subscribing witnesses, nor his subscription ever after acknowleged to them; and as to this point, the Lord Ordinary pronounced the following judgment: “Finds, that, as this disposition bears date in the year 1737, and has all along been the title upon which the heirs of the second marriage have possessed the lands, without interruption or challenge, till last year that this present process was brought by the pursuer, the heir of the first marriage; and that one of the instrumentary witnesses is dead, and the only other instrumentary witness has deponed that the subscription by him, as witness, is truly his subscription; finds, That his having deponed when aged 80 years, and in the year 1774, that he did not see the granter of that deed, which bears date in the year 1737, adhibit his subscription, cannot have the effect to annul the deed, but must be held to proceed from failure of memory in the old man; and the rather, that the other witness, the writer, is proven to have been a man of good character for accuracy and honesty; and, therefore, repels the reasons of reduction, and assoilzies the defender.” And a reclaiming bill against this judgment was refused, without answers.
For Petitioner, Maconochie.
Fac. Coll. No. 212. p. 162.
