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

Scottish Court of Session Decisions

PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW


To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.


Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.


Thank you for your support!


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Leslie, Petitioner. [1705] Mor 7429 (6 January 1705)
URL: https://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1705/Mor1807429-147.html
Cite as: [1705] Mor 7429

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


[1705] Mor 7429      

Subject_1 JURISDICTION.
Subject_2 DIVISION IV.

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

Nobile officium.

Leslie, Petitioner

Date: 6 January 1705
Case No. No 147.

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

Leslie of Balnageith, as assignee by Leslie of Middleton, having right to a bond of 6000 merks due by Sir Patrick Ogilvie of Boyne; and my Lord Seafield having got the gift of his escheat and recognition, Balnageith adjudges for this debt; but when he comes to extract his decreet, he finds no penalty liquidated in his bond, but only the general clause 'with annualrent and penalty,' without specifying what the penalty should be; whereupon he supplicates the Lords, representing this has been but an omission of the writer, and that the Lords commonly sustain the fifth or sixth part of the principal sum to be the conventional penalty and liquidate expenses; and therefore craved the Lords would allow the extractor to insert that sum in his adjudication, otherwise he would be a considerable loser, being in all probability to lie long out of his money. The Lords thought the writer of the bond culpable and censurable for so gross an omission; but did not find they had power to supply his defect, and therefore refused the bill.

Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 498. Fountainhall, v. 2. p. 256.

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: https://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1705/Mor1807429-147.html