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 >> Morris v Orrock. [1678] Mor 7426 (20 July 1678)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1678/Mor1807426-143.html
Cite as: [1678] Mor 7426

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


[1678] Mor 7426      

Subject_1 JURISDICTION.
Subject_2 DIVISION IV.

Jurisdiction of the Court of Session.
Subject_3 SECT. VII.

Nobile officium.

Morris
v.
Orrock

Date: 20 July 1678
Case No. No 143.

The Lords found, that ex officio they might supply defects in apprisings, to make them subsist as securities.


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

Morris pursues a reduction of several apprisings led against him by Orrock of Balram, wherein the penalties of the sums were exorbitant, yet the Lords did not abate the same; but it being alleged against one of the comprisings, that it was null, proceeding upon a registration on a clause in these terms, “To be registrate in the books of Session, or any other competent judicature of the kingdom;” it was registrate where the creditor lived, but the debtor was not in that jurisdiction, and so there was no competent judge. It was answered, 1mo, That, by competent judge, was understood any judge having ordinary jurisdiction; 2do, In the apprising there were diverse other sums for which the apprising ought to stand, and to be sustained, though not in this sum.

The Lords considering, that ex officio they might supply defects in apprisings, to make them subsist as securities for the just interest, without the extraordinary advantage of expiring of the legal, or unequal penalties, did declare, that if the defender would restrict his whole apprising to the ordinary penalties (for the Lords had deducted the termly failzies, and would not allow them) they would then sustain this apprising for the whole sums; but he having refused, the Lords reduced the apprising in toto. See Legal Diligence.

Stair, v. 2. p. 637. *** Fountainhall reports this case:

1678. July 19.

A comprising found null because led on a bond registered in Kirkcaldy town books, within whose jurisdiction the debtor dwelt not; and the appriser here refused to restrict to his just sums; and as the Lords maintain comprisings as a legal security, so they embrace every opportunity to cut them off where they are rigid.

Fountainhall, MS.

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/1678/Mor1807426-143.html