Legal Subject: Prescription

Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
Durham v. Durham 24 Nov 1802 Heir, Succession, Prescription Thomas Durham, brother of Sarah and Janet Durham, died without issuing any settlement of disposition over the lands of Foulshiells. The lands of Foulshiells belonged formerly to Thomas Hamilton of Boghead, who was the great-grandfather of Thomas, Sarah and Janet Durham. Sarah claimed that she was the only one entitled to inherit the lands before mentioned without division, as heir-female and older sister, in virtue of the language of the old title-deeds. Also, she pointed out that Mr. Hamilton's intention was to transfer the land to anyone called to succeed (heirs in line) without division. He expressly mentioned it in the deed and it had been transferred like that. On the other hand, Janet argued that she had a joint right to the lands before mentioned with her sisters, as heir-portioner. Finally, the Court found that Sarah had the sole right of the lands as the older sister of Thomas.
M'Math v. Campbell 9 Jul 1802 Prescription, Property rights, Creditor Pursuer brought an action to claim his preference right over a property in Daill that he had taken possession of as creditor of Neil MacKellar, who was the original landlord. It was found that Duncan Fisher, creditor of Neil MacKellar, was entitled to have part of such land, which Donald MacMath (petitioner) had in his possession. The defendant, Duncan Campbell, appeared as posterior assignee of the land in virtue of an assignation granted by Duncan Fisher. The pursuer alleged that he had had the land for a considerable time, so a prescription period was in course. Then, the discussion was if the prescription was interrupted.
Sommerville v. Weir 1781 Bill (Financial Instrument), Prescription Charger James Sommerville sued William Weir for payment of a bill accepted by William's late father, George Weir. William challenged the suit based on the sexennial prescription (i.e., the statute of limitations). Sommerville argued that the prescription did not apply because it had been interrupted by partial payments or, alternatively, by the acknowledgements of William's agents.