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!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Bryant Banet of London, Laceman, v The Earl of Home, [1772] 5 Brn 541 (00 January 1772) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1772/Brn050541-0602.html Cite as: [1772] 5 Brn 541 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
[1772] 5 Brn 541
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION. reported by Alexander Tait, Clerk Of Session, One Of The Reporters For The Faculty.
Subject_2 PRESCRIPTION.
Bryant Banet of London, Laceman,
v.
The Earl of Home,
1772 .Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
And in a still more recent cause, determined for an account clue by the late Earl; Lord Kennet, Ordinary, sustained the defence of prescription pleaded against the account libelled, and assoilyied the defender; and the Lords, upon petition and answers, adhered.
Where a summons concludes against different debtors, on different media, for different debts, insisting against one will not preserve the summons from sleeping as to the rest. It is the same as to prescription: insisting against one defender, on a separate conclusion, will not stop prescription as to the rest. The mere execution of a summons stops only for seven years, but a process stops for 40 years: What then does a summons, executed and called judicially, do? Whether is this a process which stops prescription for 40 years? It would seem to be so; see 22d July 1758, Ross against Wallace; yet see 23d November 1694, Rattray, observed by Fountainhall, where the point was debated, but not decided.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting
