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 >>
Margaret Arnot v Mr Robert Arnot. [1665] Mor 2217 (11 January 1665)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1665/Mor0602217-078.html Cite as:
[1665] Mor 2217
Reduction of a decreet of exoneration, sustained against the executor, without calling the creditors or legatees.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Margaret Arnot pursues a reduction of a decreet of exoneration, obtained by William Arnot, her uncle, and executor to her father.—It was alleged for Mr Robert Arnot, son and successor to the said William, That all parties having interest were not called, viz. the creditors and legatars, who were concerned in the event of the reduction; for if their sums and discharges were not allowed, according to the exoneration, the defender behoved to return upon them for payment; and therefore they ought to be called to defend their interest.
The Lords repelled the defence, and found no necessity to call the creditors and legatars, but that the defender might intimate the plea to them.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 138. Stair, v. 1. p. 248.*** Newbyth reports the same case thus:
In a reduction of a decreet of exoneration, pursued by William Barber and Margaret Arnot against Mr Andrew Arnot, wherein it was alleged there could be no certification, because the creditors and legatars of umquhile John Arnot, to whom Mr Andrew Arnot, the defender, his executor, had made payment of their debts and legacies, and whereupon the decreet of exoneration was recovered, were not called.—The Lords found there was no necessity to call the legatars and creditors of the defunct; that the not calling of them could not stop certification; but that the defender might intimate the plea to them.
