AI-transcribed

Limitation of actions. In most cases, however, the action is not absolutely barred, but the plaintiff, after the period limited, is restricted to proof of his claim by writing under the hand of the defendant, or by the defendant's admission on oath. Merchants' and tradesmen's accounts fall under the rule in three years, parole contracts in five, bills in six, covenants by sureties in seven, bonds unattested in twenty, and other covenants in forty years, called the long prescription, and which extinguishes the right.

Definition source
Kinnear, J. B., Digest of House of Lords Cases Decided on Appeal from Scotland, 1709-1864 — Glossary of Scottish Law Terms (Edinburgh, 1865). Public domain.

Legal Subject: Prescription

Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
Abraham Delvalle, and Others v. The Creditors of the York-Buildings Company 1783 Debt, Prescription, Creditor, Sequestration, Trustee, Trust After the York Buildings Company failed, its real property in Scotland became the subject of a ranking of creditors. In this ranking, a group of creditors objected to certain claims that had been submitted. In particular, the creditors made two key objections to claims based on bonds issued by the Company. First, the creditors objected that many bonds had been cut off by the Scottish statute of limitations, or “prescription.” In response, the affected bondholders argued that the prescription should not apply because the debts were still valid in England, where they had been contracted and where the York Buildings Company and its creditors resided. Second, the creditors objected that some bonds had been issued under value and should be ranked accordingly. The affected creditors argued that the bonds were negotiable instruments, and purchasers were entitled to rely on their face value. In the course of the proceedings, both sides filed petitions with the Court of Session.
Aitcheson v. Stalker 1777 Bill (Financial Instrument), Death - Presumption of, Mala Fides, Debt, Succession, Prescription In January 1770, Andrew Stalker accepted a bill for £42 sterling payable to his sister-in-law, Rebecca Spreull. Both of them died shortly afterward. Spreull's husband, John of Milton, sued Stalker's nephew, Samuel, for payment of this bill. The Sheriff of Lanark found Samuel Stalker liable, but around that time (March 1771) John Spreull died. The trustees of Spreull's son, who had been abroad, then obtained confirmation and charged Stalker upon the Sheriff's order. The case went dormant for several years, but in January 1777 Lord Kennet found Stalker liable. Stalker then petitioned the Court to alter this interlocutor, claiming several additional grounds of compensation. He also contended that the confirmation of John Aitcheson, the surviving trustee, was inept, for the person in whose name it was given - John Spreull, junior - had perished in a shipwreck shortly before his father's death. Furthermore, Stalker claimed that the original decreet charged on was null and void, for John Spreull, senior, had died shortly beforehand. John Aitcheson countered the suspender's various pleas of compensation, and declared that Stalker's contention regarding the death of Spreull, senior, was clearly false. He also claimed that there was no evidence that Spreull, junior, had been lost at sea, and that he was merely "abroad on business."
Alexander Dick Junior v. William Richardson 1838 Prescription, Interlocutor, Agent, Witness, Debt, Process Alexander Dick Junior sought suspension of a Glasgow magistrates' decree enforcing payment of £26:15:2 against him, alleging procedural and evidentiary flaws in the underlying action and disputing the law account charges, including a contested item dated April 1830. The litigation proceeded with challenges regarding procedural irregularities in proof, culminating in the Court's rejection of pleas of prescription and incompetence of bill, upholding the account as valid and awarding expenses against Dick as suspender. Dick subsequently petitioned to suspend William Richardson concerning disputed authorship and possession of legal documents arising from prior Richardson & Porter cases.
Alexander Kinloch and Others v. James Rocheid 1799 Debt, Aliment, Succession, Prescription, Teinds, Creditor Elizabeth Rocheid executed a strict entail of her one-half share of Inverleith and Darnchester. She conveyed the rest of her estate to the heirs of entail, conditioned on their paying Elizabeth’s debts and legacies, and using any surplus to purchase and entail the remainder of Inverleith and Darnchester. Alexander Kinloch, the institute, and James Rocheid, his son (represented by tutors), paid Elizabeth's debts and legacies, but they did not purchase the lands specified in Elizabeth’s deed. The next substitutes brought an action against James, seeking an accounting and enforcement of the deed. James responded that because Elizabeth had died more than forty years earlier, the action was barred by the negative prescription. Case documents refer to additional family members and other individuals. They also describe transactions relating to the creation of the South Bridge.
Alexander Milne v. Freeholders of Aberdeenshire 1791 Freeholder, Adjudication, Liferent, Trust, Prescription, Election contest Alexander Milne, as pursuer, petitioned the Court in June 1791 and again by reclaiming petition in December 1791 to alter a recent interlocutor in his action against the Freeholders of Aberdeenshire. Captain John Gordon subsequently presented his own petition requesting the Court to alter its recent interlocutor in the same cause.
Alexander v. Lord Monboddo's Interlocutor 1787 Prescription, Interlocutor, Libel, Debt, Parole Evidence, Oath of Party Pursuer James Alexander petitioned the Court of Session to alter Lord Monboddo's interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Allan v. Surtees, Burdon, and Embleton 1806 Debt, Bankruptcy, Bill of Exchange, Sequestration, Prescription, Usury The executors of William Walker, Surtees, Burdon, and Embleton, pursued Robert Allan, a banker in Edinburgh, to recover statutory penalties for usurious transactions he had conducted with Sinclair and Williamson. Allan defended the action on the grounds that the claim was barred by prescription and failed to satisfy statutory requirements.
Allardice v. The Officers of State, and the Ministers of Bervie and St. Andrews 1798 Teinds, Valuation, Proof, Stipend, Tack, Prescription Robert Barclay Allardice pursued the Officers of State and the Ministers of Bervie and St. Andrews regarding the modification of the teinds of Hallgreen lands. The Reverend Robert Croll submitted that the teinds should be fixed at a fair and equitable rate, while Allardice argued they ought to be valued at a fifth of the rent prior to improvements rather than the current improved rent. The parties exchanged competing memorials on the proper basis for calculating the teind duty.
Anderson v. Richardson 1786 Defamation, Libel, Aliment, Proof, Interlocutor, Prescription John Anderson, Professor of Natural Philosophy, as pursuer, alleged that William Richardson, Professor of Humanity, as defender, uttered defamatory invectives against him in a public classroom at the College of Glasgow. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Andrew Wauchope and Others v. The Magistrates of Canongate 1798 Prescription, Possession, Act of Parliament, Statute, Title, Burgh The Magistrates of Canongate, defenders, were authorized by statute to levy customs duties at the Water Gate with respect to certain articles at particular rates. For many years, the Magistrates had charged higher rates and levied duties on articles not mentioned in the statute. In 1795, the Magistrates published a new table of duties that served to increase rates and to add new articles. Pursuers Andrew Wauchope, the Trustees of the Post Road District, and William Scott (Procurator-fiscal of the County of Edinburgh) challenged the Magistrates’ authority to charge duties not specifically authorized by the statute.
Baillie v. Eskgrove's Interlocutor 1795 Bankruptcy, Cautioner, Succession, Prescription, Trustee, Diligence Baillie, as petitioners, challenged Eskgrove’s interlocutor rejecting their defense that a 1785 judicial bond was exempt from the 1695 Act’s seven-year limit by prescription. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Baillie v. Magistrates and Town Council of Glasgow 1796 Heritor, Prescription, Act of Parliament, Expenses, Possession, Interlocutor John Baillie reclaimed against an interlocutor of the Lord Justice-Clerk in an action against the Magistrates and Town Council of Glasgow concerning the liability for costs of repairing foot-pavements. The defenders submitted information arguing that adjacent proprietors, and not the public, must bear the cost of such repairs.
Baird and Kerr v. Heritors of Stobo and Ministers of Drummelizier and Broughton 1794 Teinds, Stipend, Tack, Heritor, Augmentation, Prescription Baird and Kerr pursued an action against the heritors of Stobo and the ministers of Drummelzier and Broughton regarding portions of the teinds of Stobo. The ministers of Drummelzier and Broughton claimed a radical and clear prescriptive right to those teinds based on nearly two centuries of enjoyment. The pursuers countered that the teinds had been erroneously paid to the ministers and that they were entitled to evict them.
Balfour v. M'Kenzie 1794 Teinds, Tack, Succession, Stipend, Prescription, Heritor Balfour pursued the reduction of decrees of prorogation of tithes for Tarbat and Fearn granted to the Earl of Cromarty, arguing that they had been obtained by fraud and in the absence of the Crown, were inconsistent with the original tack, and exceeded the Court's legal power. M'Kenzie defended the validity of the decrees, maintaining that they were not subject to reduction or challenge. The pursuer replied, reiterating that the prorogations violated the terms of the original tack and lay beyond the Court's jurisdiction.
Barry, et al v. Incorporation of Weavers, et al 1789 Possession, Prescription, Interlocutor, Damages, Representation, Kirk Session The Reverend Mr George Barry and the remanent members of the Kirk-session of Kirkwall and St Ola defended against a petition by the Incorporation of Weavers, Hammermen, Taylors, and Shoemakers of Kirkwall to alter Lord Henderland’s interlocutor. The incorporations sought to modify the court’s earlier decision, and the Kirk-session submitted answers resisting the proposed alteration.
Boyd Porterfield of Porterfield v. Joanna, Margaret, and Lilias Porterfields 1771 Land, Title Dispute, Debt, Tailzie, Succession, Prescription Boyd Porterfield, the pursuer, claimed that he was entitled to the lands of the Porterfield family in Hapland following the death of his cousin, Gabriel. Boyd was the grandson and heir of Alexander Porterfield, who, in turn, was a cousin of Gabriel Porterfield. In 1716, Gabriel granted a bond of tailzie to Alexander. Boyd claimed that he was entitled to the lands based on the tailzie. Gabriel's three daughters, Joanna, Margaret, and Lilias, along with their husbands, challenged Boyd's claim to the lands and sought to control their father's estate.
Budge v. Lord Henderson's Interlocutor 1794 Teinds, Prescription, Disposition, Infeftment, Succession, Feu duties Budge, as petitioner, submitted a memorial arguing that she and her predecessors had acquired an heritable right to the teinds of Toftingall by positive prescription, despite the lack of infeftment or charter. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Campbell v. Stuart 1794 Sasine, Libel, Teinds, Reversion, Prescription, Arrestment Andrew Stuart petitioned against an interlocutor of Lord Frederick Campbell that assoilzied Campbell from the counter-action raised by Stuart. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Campbell v. Tod 1785 Aliment, Succession, Prescription, Possession, Tack, Thirlage Doctor Robert Campbell, pursuer, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor in the action against Tod. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Campbells v. Macneil 1798 Debt, Prescription, Execution, Bankruptcy, Oath, Citation Colin Campbell and Duncan Campbell junior, as trustees on the sequestrated estate of Alexander M'Corquodale, pursued John Macneil of Gigha to alter an interlocutor of Lord Armadale regarding an account libelled against him. Macneil answered, pleading that the account was prescribed and the execution false. The parties thereafter debated the proper interpretation of Macneil's oath and the validity of the citation.
Countess of Sutherland v. Officers of State 1793 Teinds, Lease, Teind, Prescription, Tack, Aliment The Countess of Sutherland pursued the Officers of State to determine whether rents derived from salmon fishings were liable to vicarage teinds. The defenders argued that such rents were not teindable and that deductions ought to be denied, while the respondent maintained that salmon fishings were not subject to vicarage teinds in the absence of proof by forty years' possession and payment. The litigation turned on the criteria for establishing the teindability of salmon-fishing revenues.
Creditors of Currie v. Geddes 1793 Debt, Creditor, Prescription, Bill of Exchange, Trustee, Trustees The creditors of Currie, represented by their common agent in the sale and ranking of the Estate of Newlaw, petitioned the Court to alter Lord Swinton’s interlocutor. The respondents contested the creditors’ attempt to rank debts against Currie’s estate, citing partial payments and post-prescription markings as evidence of debt continuity.
Cunningham v. Veitch 1791 Adjudication, Property, Prescription, Possession, Sasine, Teinds The Merchants in Edinburgh, defenders, answered a petition by James Cunningham, pursuer, asserting that Covenant Close was their private property and not a common passage, citing historical deeds and a former gate. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Douglas v. Grierson 1793 Debt, Prescription, Oath, Interlocutor, Creditor, Aliment William Douglas, factor for the Representatives of the Leith Soperie Company, pursued payment from Mrs. Hislop, the widow, for soap furnished in 1782. When the court sustained the defender’s plea of triennial prescription, Douglas petitioned to alter and remit the interlocutor, arguing that written commission and receipt from 1782 provided sufficient proof of debt to overcome the prescription bar, and sought reconsideration of the ruling. Mrs. Hislop subsequently reclaimed against the interlocutor sustaining the defense of prescription.
Douglas v. Lord Justice Clerk's Interlocutor 1788 Debt, Arrestment, Bill of Exchange, Sequestration, Prescription, Interlocutor William Douglas of Luss, Esquire petitioned the Court of Session to alter a recent interlocutor pronounced by the Lord Justice Clerk. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Douglas, Heron, & Company v. William Riddick 1791 Debt, Arrestment, Cautioner, Creditor, Prescription, Sequestration William Riddick, as defender, petitioned the Court to alter Lord Dreghorn’s interlocutor against him at the instance of Douglas, Heron, & Company, arguing that the bond in question fell under the septennial limitation for cautionary engagements and that the decree lacked valid diligence. The respondents answered, asserting that the bond was not for immediate debt and that Riddick was barred from the benefit of the limitation by dolo. Riddick thereafter petitioned the Inner House to overturn its interlocutor on the ground that the cautionary obligation was subject to the septennial limitation.
Duff v. Innes 1770 Debt, Arrestment, Cautioner, Succession, Bill of Exchange, Prescription Lauchlan Duff pursued Innes for sums due under two obligatory missives dated 1758, arguing that the defender remained liable despite a defence of septennial prescription. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Dundas v. Duncan 1801 Lordship, Decree of adjudication, Possession, Prescription right, Debt, Prescription Dundas continued the case as assignee of Miss Helen Bucknay who initially brought the petition. Ms. Bucknay asked the Court to declare that she (now Dundas) has the only good and undoubted right and title to some houses situated in the burgh of Linlithgow over the defendant (Jean Duncan). Therefore he should cede his possession of these subjects. Defendant submitted and explained the title and deeds of the premises, such as a decree of adjudication and bond granted by the prior landlord who transferred the ownership to him and his family, in payment and in satisfaction of a debt.
Durham v. Durham 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.
Earl of Lauderdale v. George Inglis of Reidhall 1764 Prescription, Teinds, Tack, Inhibition, Adjudication, Bankruptcy James Earl of Lauderdale pursued George Inglis of Reidhall for the teinds of Reidball, asserting title by inheritance and inhibition and denying the defender’s claims of sale and prescription. Inglis defended his right, contending that his prescription remained valid and unbroken by the inhibitions relied upon by the pursuer. The Earl then petitioned to alter the court’s interlocutor, urging that prior inhibitions and judicial processes barred the defender’s prescriptive claim, and Inglis answered by maintaining his prescriptive title to the tithes.
Elliot v. M'Kay 1777 Onerous Indorsation, Debt, Bill of Exchange, Prescription, Compensation, Assignation In January 1772, Archibald Graham drew a bill upon Hugh Mackay, payable on Whitsunday of that year. According to the pursuer, David Elliot, Archibald Graham later endorsed the bill to James Campbell as compensation. This bill was then endorsed to William Graham, who later endorsed it to David Elliot. No demand was made on Mackay's bill until December 1773, 18 months after the term of payment. At this time David Elliot brought action against Hugh Mackay, who attested that he was not aware that the bill had been endorsed over, and pleaded compensation. The cause came before Lord Pitfour, who assoilzied (absolved) Mackay in February 1775. Elliot represented against this interlocutor, and the cause was remitted to Lord Auchinleck. Auchinleck reported the cause to the full court. In January 1777, the Court found compensation to be valid, and assoilzied Mackay. In a petition responding to this ruling, Elliot argued that other mercantile countries held much longer expiration dates for bills, and allowing compensation for a bill held by an onerous endorsee would be destructive for business. In July 1777, the Court agreed with the petitioner, and overturned its previous ruling.
Elliot v. Romanis 1790 Bill of Exchange, Execution, Debt, Prescription, Creditor, Diligence Helen Elliot pursued Robert Romanis, a Lauder writer, for loss resulting from an officer’s conduct and the negligence of others. Romanis petitioned to alter the court’s interlocutor to deny liability, and subsequently raised an action against John GrahamsLie. GrahamsLie petitioned to be assoilzied from that action, and Romanis answered that his own liability arose from his own omission rather than GrahamsLie’s conduct, noting that the execution had been obtained by others.
Erskine v. Erskine 1795 Succession, Creditor, Adjudication, Debt, Disposition, Prescription The respondent Erskine argued that the marriage contract of 1738 constituted an onerous deed in favour of George Erskine that bound his heir to denude the lands. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Fleming and Elphinston v. Fleming and Grant 1766 Adjudication, Improbation, Succession, Prescription, Title, Reduction This case involved competing claims to the title of the lands of Board and a dispute over the validity of Robert Fleming's descendence from the Flemings of Board. In 1758, Robert Fleming and his trustee John Grant brought an action of reduction against Lady Clementina Fleming to revoke her rights to the lands of Board. In 1761, Lady Clementina and her husband Charles Elphinstone initiated this counter-suit and brought an action of reduction against Robert Fleming and John Grant, in which they claimed that Robert Fleming was an illegitimate heir of the Flemings of Board and therefore had no claim over the lands of Board under dispute.
Francis Pinkerton Drummond v. William Abernethy Drummond, &c 1792 Succession, Liferent, Prescription, Disposition, Infeftment, Heritor Francis Pinkerton Drummond, as pursuer, sought against William Abernethy Drummond and others the correction of a charter or infeftment to reflect the true succession under a 1722 marriage contract rather than heirs-male in general. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Fullarton & Fullarton v. Dalrymple 1796 Succession, Deed, Possession, Prescription, Debt, Tack
George-Alexander Gordon v. Janet Gordon 1784 Tailzie, Succession, Disposition, Prescription, Infeftment, Reduction This case involved a dispute between women who sought to inherit property as heirs of line and another relative who sought to inherit under an entail. Near the end of his life, Bailie Charles Gordon executed an entail granting the lands of Pitlurg and Achorties to his son Alexander or, in the alternative, to a series of substitutes. Alexander inherited the property, but rather than claiming it as heir of entail, he took the lands under a precept of clare constat (a type of deed). Alexander also obtained a decree voiding the entail on the ground that it was completed on deathbed. Alexander held the property for more than 40 years, the length of the statutory prescription (limitations) period. When Alexander died in 1783, his sister Janet Gordon and niece Magdalene Grant claimed the property as heirs of line. Another relative, George-Alexander Gordon, claimed under the entail. Janet and Magdalene defended their claim with two arguments: (1) the entail was void; and (2) Alexander had defeated the entail by possessing the property for more than 40 years under an unlimited title. George-Alexander argued that the prescription period had been interrupted because he was a minor when he became the immediate substitute. He also challenged the decree voiding the entail.
Graham v. Pate 1798 Teinds, Heritor, Prescription, Teind, Tack, Stipend Catharine Pate, John Dickson, and Robert Dickson petitioned against Lord Swinton's interlocutor, arguing that bygone teinds were cut off by quinquennial prescription. Lady Christian Graham, Executrix, answered through her Commissioner and Factor, responding to this prescription argument.
Grant v. McIntosh 1788 Debt, Adjudication, Arrestment, Ranking of Creditors, Prescription, Diligence Sir James Grant pursued Robert M’Intosh for diligence to compel the production of writings relating to debt payment in an action against the York-Buildings Company. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Gray v. Methven's Interlocutor 1795 Aliment, Prescription, Creditor, Debt, Succession, Interlocutor William Chambers petitioned the Court to remit the sheriff's interlocutor that held him liable for the aliment and expenses of Jean Wightman's child. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Grove v. Petre 1785 Debt, Adjudication, Creditor, Ranking of Creditors, Sequestration, Prescription Mrs. Martha Grove and other creditors of the York-Building Company pursued warrants for payment of their debts from the company's estates, while Anne, Lady Petre, Lord Stourton, and the heirs of the Duke of Norfolk defended by objecting, citing prior adjudication and preference rights as heirs. The litigation originated in claims of compensation and retention against the defenders' rank as heirs of the Duke of Norfolk, to which Lady Petre, Lord Stourton, and Sir Archibald Grant had answered in 1785. After Lady Petre petitioned to resume consideration in 1786, the parties exchanged answers, replies, and duplies in 1787 regarding the creditors' entitlement to the warrants, with the defenders arguing that the pursuers must prove their claims preferable and the creditors maintaining their right to payment despite the objections.
Hamilton v. Cunningham 1792 Debt, Bill of Exchange, Insurance, Prescription, Interlocutor, Creditor John Hamilton of Barns pursued Sir William Cunningham of Robertland, Baronet, and William Campbell of Fairfield, as representatives of the deceased Sir William Cunningham and William Campbell, together with William Ballantyne and James Hunter, for debts which the defenders contended were barred by prescription. Hamilton petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor against an Inner-House interlocutor, and after the defenders answered, a report maintained that the defenders' books showed debts still owing despite the prescription plea. Hamilton subsequently answered the defenders' petition maintaining that his claims remained valid.
Hepburn and Massow v. Duff and Davidson 1793 Prescription, Tack, Aliment, Thirlage, tenant, Sasine Robert William Duff and his tenant John Donaldson, defenders in the action by Hepburn and Massow, petitioned against Lord Monboddo's interlocutors. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Heritors of Kirkcudbright v. Birtwhistle 1790 Teinds, Adjudication, Disposition, Prescription, Heritor, Tack The Heritors of Kirkcudbright sought to establish a scheme of locality for the lands of Balmae against William Birtwhistle, who claimed the teinds of those lands and objected to the proposed arrangement. They petitioned the Court to repel Birtwhistle's objection after Lord Monboddo pronounced an interlocutor adverse to their scheme, and Birtwhistle answered while maintaining his claim to the teinds. Birtwhistle later petitioned to alter the Court's subsequent interlocutor, and the Heritors, represented by the Earl of Selkirk, answered to resist his teind claim and defend the locality scheme.
Incorporation of Weavers in Glasgow v. James Freeland and Others 1777 Charter, Weaving, Silk, Statute, Corporation, Prescription In 1528, the Crown granted the Incorporation of Weavers in Glasgow an exclusive charter to practice weaving in that burgh. In 1681, however, they lost the exclusive privilege of weaving linen and hemp. Around 1760, a number of craftsmen in Glasgow began operating as silk-weavers despite being neither freemen of the Incorporation of Weavers nor, in some cases, freemen of Glasgow Burgh. In 1775, after the Incorporation of Weavers brought a complaint against a number of them, Bailie Duncan Niven had them imprisoned and fined. After obtaining a bill of suspension and liberation, these silk-weavers brought an action of oppression and damages against certain members of the Incorporation, and against Bailie Niven. At the same time, the Incorporation of Weavers requested a declaration that only members of their guild could practice silk-weaving within Glasgow. These actions were conjoined and came before Lord Gardenstone, who reported the case. The Court found that if the silk-weavers wished to practice their craft, they must join the Incorporation of Weavers. The case reports only cover the action of declarator brought by the Incorporation of Weavers.
Inhabitants of the Parish of Crailing v. Hunter 1791 Prescription, Heritor, Adjudication, Inhibition, Aliment, Thirlage The inhabitants of the Parish of Crailing petitioned as pursuers in May 1791 to overturn a recent interlocutor against the defender Mr. Hunter, citing ancestral burial rights and a 1763 Sheriff judgment. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Isabel Howison v. John Howison 1784 Debt, Cautioner, Bill of Exchange, Sequestration, Prescription, Security Three men granted a bill to Stephen Howison, the late father of pursuer Isobel Howison. Additionally, John Howison of Hyndford, defender, wrote Stephen a letter promising that the bill would be paid. Later, Isobel sued John for payment. In response, John argued that the action was barred by a six-year limitation on bills and a seven-year limitation on liability for cautioners.
J. J. Hope Vere v. Right Hon. Charles Hope and Others 1822 Succession, Entail, Tailzie, Prescription, Disposition, Sasine James Joseph Hope Vere pursued an action of declarator against the Right Honourable Charles Hope and the other Heirs of Entail of Craigiehall regarding the succession to the estate and the effect of the tailzie of 1708. The pursuer contended that the lands were held free of entail fetters, while the defenders maintained that the 1733 marriage contract had not altered the destination of the original entail and asserted that Hope Vere was barred from reduction by contravention, forfeiture, prescription, and the tailzie's resolutive clause. Between 1823 and 1830 the parties exchanged successive defences, informations, and revised cases disputing the construction of the entail and the validity of the subsequent titles.
James Russel v. James Fairie 1791 Debt, Prescription, Bill of Exchange, Interlocutor, Statute of limitations, Oath Documents uploaded. Full description in progress.
James Scott v. John Bruce-Stewart 1776 Positive Prescription, Wadset, Female Succession, Reversion, Prescription, Sasine This case concerns a property dispute over a number of landholdings throughout Shetland, "within the parishes of Dunrosnes, Burray, Tingwall, Aithsting, Walls, Detline, Northmaven, Yell, Fetkor, Bressa, and Lerwick." The cause dated back to the late 17th century, when Sinclair of Scalloway granted wadsets to Stewart of Bigtown over the lands of "Blosta, Aithsetter, and Flathabister, and certain other lands" as well as "Houland, Reafirth, Sellafirth, Woodwick, and Gravone." The wadset was never redeemed and the lands passed to Clementina Stewart, who conveyed them to her husband, John Bruce of Symbister. Around the same time the two co-heirs of Scalloway, Philadelphia Scott and Katherine Sinclair, conveyed this property to Sinclair's husband, James Scott. Scott, now of Scalloway, then brought a process of reduction and declarator, demanding that Bruce-Stewart cede the wadset-lands, or at least return them after receiving the wadset fee. Bruce-Stewart produced various documents that he argued proved the positive prescription, namely a 1706 disposition of these lands by Stewart of Bigtown in favor of his heir. In July 1776, Lord Kennet assoilzied (absolved) Bruce-Stewart from the reduction, and Scott petitioned the Court for review. Scott argued that the right of reversion was heritable and perpetual, and not subject to the positive prescription. Furthermore, he argued that as a result of various technicalities, the disposition upon which the defender made his claim of the positive prescription was null and void. The Court found in favor of Scott at first, but later overturned their previous interlocutor, determining that Bruce-Stewart had produced sufficient evidence to exclude.

Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 582)