ROBERT, ELLIOT v HENRY JOHNSTONE, one of the Managers of, and for behoof of the Leith Banking Company (Court of Session)

The prayer of the bill was general; and the deliverance was in these terms, ‘ Fiat ut petitur , because the Lords have seen the registered bond, stated account, and certified extract before mentioned.’

The Court (with the exception of Lord Craigie) were of opinion that the objections were fatal to the inhibition.

In reference to the allegation that such irregularities were common in practice, and disregarded, and the offer to prove such practice by the evidence of the keeper of the signet, the Lord President objected to such a report being taken. He would be very sorry to see it, and would pay no regard to it, whatever the practice might be.

For the Petitioner, Sol.-Gen. (Hope) Whigham, G. Bell. W. Martin, Agent. For the Respondents, Jameson, Anderson. Morison and Bisset, Agents. H. Clerk.

There were other grounds pleaded for recalling the inhibition, which it appears unnecessary to mention particularly, as the judgment of the Court proceeded upon what is above stated; but, in reference to some observations which fell from the Bench at the advising, it may be proper to state that there were various alterations and interlineations introduced in the bill of inhibition, though not in important particulars. This, however, was alleged by the respondents not to be uncommon in practice (which was not denied); and it was offered to be proved by a report from the Keeper of the Signet.