If you found BAILII useful today, could you please make a contribution?

Your donation will help us maintain and extend our databases of legal information. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month donates, 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!


BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Scottish Court of Session Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Thomas Dunbar of Muchrome v The Vassals of the Barony of Muchrome. [1662] Mor 6715 (20 December 1662)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1662/Mor1606715-140.html
Cite as: [1662] Mor 6715

[New search] [View without highlighting] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


[1662] Mor 6715      

Subject_1 IMPROBATION.
Subject_2 SECT. VI.

Title to Exclude. - When Proponable. - What Title Sufficient. - What the Effect.

Thomas Dunbar of Muchrome
v.
The Vassals of the Barony of Muchrome

Date: 20 December 1662
Case No. No 140.

It was sustained that the defender had produced sufficient to exclude the pursuer, and that till his rights produced were discussed and taken away, there could be no certification contra non producta.


Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy

Thomas Dunbar of Muchrome pursues reduction and improbation against the vassals of the barony of Muchrome, wherein all the terms being run, reserving defences, now, at the last term, it was alleged for Hay of Ariolland, no certification contra non producta against him, because he had produced a precept of clare constat from the pursuer's father as heir, to whom he pursues. 2do, It was alleged, That he had produced sufficiently to exclude the pursuer's right produced, and so till his rights produced were discussed and taken away, there could be no certification contra non producta. The pursuer answered to the first, that the precept of clare constat was but in obedience of a precept out of the chancellary. As to the ancient rights produced, if the defender would rest thereon, he needed not stand that certification should be granted against any others not produced, seeing these produced are sufficient; but if the certification should be thus stopped, the effect of all improbations and non-entries should be marred by dropping in new writs from time to time, and still disputing thereon, and so dispute the reasons before the production were closed; at least the defender ought to allege, that the writs produced are sufficient, and declare he will make use of no further in this process.

The Lords repelled the first allegeance on the precept of clare constat being for obedience, but found the second allegeance relevant hoc ordine, and ordained the defender to condescend upon his rights by way of defence to the pursuer, to answer thereto presently.

Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 450. Stair, v. 1. p. 151.

The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting     


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1662/Mor1606715-140.html