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
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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, 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
John Gordon of Auchanachy v. Grizel Ogilvie	1757	Succession, Debt, Disposition, Infeftment, Prescription, Reduction	John Gordon of Auchanachy, pursuer, and his trustee Alexander Gordon of Whiteley, Advocate, challenged the title of Grizel, Katharine, and Anne Ogilvie, daughters of John Ogilvy, to the Estate of Balbegno, arguing that the defenders' claim founded on a 1713 obligation of their mother Elizabeth Middleton was voidable on grounds of prescription and res judicata. The defenders maintained that the pursuer was barred from reducing their infeftment by ratified obligations binding his parents and by forty years' prescription, while the pursuer contended that he was not subject to his father's debts and that a prior decreet-absolvitor against Lady Auchanachy did not bar the present action. The parties exchanged memorials and answers disputing the validity of a 1709 estate settlement, the production of evidence, and allegations of fraud and misconduct in the original disposition.
John Watson v. Sarah Marshall and Others	1781	Creditor, Adjudication, Debt, Succession, Inhibition, Prescription	John Watson, trustee for the creditors of David Ireland, petitioned the Court to alter a recent interlocutor, asserting that his claim founded upon a 1733 inhibition and Jean Crookshanks’s overt intromission gave him priority over competing creditors. The creditors of James Alcorn, including Sarah Marshall, opposed the petition, disputing Watson’s title and ranking while raising objections of prescription, usury, and the validity of a bond of corroboration obtained under interdiction. Watson subsequently defended David Ireland’s adjudication against Marshall’s claim, maintaining his superior creditor rank and the retroactive validity of Jean Cruickshanks’s ruling.
Kirkpatrick v. Maxwells	1795	Succession, Possession, Contract, Prescription, Tack, Trustee	William Kirkpatrick claimed title to Kirkcudbright lands against the heirs and husbands of Sir Robert Maxwell’s sisters, who defended by asserting their own prior title founded upon ancient charters and prescription. After the Court issued an interlocutor, Kirkpatrick petitioned to have it altered, and the defenders subsequently disputed his claim.
Lord Frederick Campbell, Lord Clerk-Register of Scotland v. Andrew-Stuart, Keeper of the General and Particular Register of Sasines at Edinburgh	1792	Register, Teinds, Prescription, Sasine, Reversion, Statute	Lord Frederick Campbell, Lord Clerk-Register of Scotland, sued Andrew Stuart, Keeper of the General and Particular Register of Sasines, to recover authority over the sasine registers. Stuart, together with John Davidson and Andrew Steele, had claimed that a Crown commission conferred upon them lawful authority over the general Register of Seisins and custody of the particular register books. Campbell challenged the validity of that commission and asserted his own statutory authority under the 1617 Act, demanding surrender of the unmarked books.
M'Ghie and Attorney v. Forbes and Hay	1794	Debt, Succession, Creditor, Prescription, Possession, Compensation	M'Ghie and Attorney pursued Forbes and Hay, maintaining that William M'Ghie and Jean Forbes had possessed the houses without title and that their intromissions could not be enforced against the defenders. The defenders answered that Mrs Jean Forbes, as assignee of her husband's debt, had no claim beyond her jointure, and that they as trustees were not liable for her intromissions.
M'Math v. Campbell	1801	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.
Mackay and Fullerton v. Dalrymples et al	1795	Succession, Possession, Reduction, Entail, Prescription, Sequestration	Mrs Marianne Mackay, subsequently the Honourable Mrs Hamilton Fullarton, and her husband Colonel William Fullarton pursued Sir Hew Hamilton Dalrymple and other representatives of the Dalrymple family regarding succession to the estate of Bargeny, asserting rights as nearest substitutes under a 1688 marriage contract and entail which provided for female-line succession, while the defenders claimed title under a 1742 charter and seisin. The litigation involved petitions for sequestration of the estate, disputes over the custody of title-deeds and the removal of seals from estate repositories, and exchanges regarding the pursuers' standing to displace the defenders as heirs-apparent, the validity of a plea of minority, and allegations of contravention of irritant clauses. The pursuers sought to compel production of writings relied upon by the defenders and to conjoin reduction and declarator processes to ascertain their position under the entail, while the defenders maintained their lawful possession and disputed the pursuers' entitlement to the succession.
Mackenzie and Dunbar v. Mackenzie	1793	Succession, Property, Prescription, Thirlage, Debt, Tack	Sir Hector Mackenzie defended against a thirlage petition by Mackenzie and Dunbar regarding the Logierioch lands, arguing that his obligations were limited by custom rather than feudal tenure and that tenants had long paid no multure for grain. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Maclauchlan and Campbell v. Campbell and Macnicol	1794	Aliment, Debt, Succession, Prescription, Intromission, Factor	Grace Campbell, co-heiress and creditor under her father's marriage-contract, and Maclauchlan pursued the representatives of the late Colin Campbell of Ballinaby for count and reckoning. The defenders petitioned to be assoilzied from the action, and Maclauchlan sought alteration of a recent interlocutor. The pursuers subsequently argued that a tutor who failed to make inventories was not entitled to plead decennial prescription.
Martin and Ker v. Robertsons	1792	Debt, Prescription, Statute, Statute of limitations, Creditor, Aliment	Martin and Ker pursued a debt claim against Robert Robertson, a minor, and his tutors, who defended by asserting that prescription barred the action under the 1579 statute, requiring the creditors to prove the debt and its unpaid status beyond three years. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Maxwell and McCrerick v. Murdoch	1788	Arrestment, Creditor, Trustee, Sequestration, Prescription, Debt	John Maxwell and John M'Crerick petitioned the Court against Lord Ankerville’s interlocutors, craving alteration of the arrestment preference granted to John Murdoch and remission of their expenses. Murdoch answered, defending his right to the preference against the objections raised by the pursuers.
Maxwells v. Kirkpatrick	1793	Succession, Possession, Contract, Prescription, Debt, Teinds	Heirs of Sir Robert Maxwell petitioned the court regarding title to Kirkcudbright Castle and its lands, challenging a 1793 interlocutor by claiming through Maclellane heirs and a 1664 contract with Sir David Dunbar and arguing that unfulfilled conditions invalidated Dunbar’s claims. William Kirkpatrick, trustee for Robert Maxwell, defended his title under a 1740 deed and 1762 trust. The heirs subsequently resisted Kirkpatrick’s eviction attempt by asserting rights through prescription and prior appraisings.
Montgomery v. Fowlis	1794	Succession, Deed, Debt, Prescription, Disposition, Creditor	Montgomery, as pursuer, asserted that his adjudging creditor titles to the lands of Warrix and others were valid and complete while those of the defenders Fowlis were void. The defenders countered that a deed of tailzie executed in 1729, though not formally delivered, had been homologated by Janet Simpson's acceptance of a debt from the estate and thus constituted a valid title. Robert Barclay subsequently petitioned the Court for permission to present further argument against the defenders' claims based on an adjudication of heir rights under a disposition dated 1722.
Muirhead, Hay, and Company v. Dunmore	1792	Debt, Creditor, Sequestration, Interest, Interlocutor, Prescription	Muirhead, Hay, and Company, merchants in Glasgow, pursued Robert Dunmore for payment of debts contracted in Virginia, contending that Dunmore was liable as a partner of Logan, Gilmour, and Company. Dunmore defended the action on the grounds that the debts were prescribed, lacked proper documentary support, and were improperly pursued following forfeiture in Virginia.
Petrie v. Lord Ankerville's Interlocutor	1789	Debt, Prescription, Bill of Exchange, Creditor, Rent, Security	Pursuer Joseph Petrie petitioned the Court of Session to alter its recent interlocutor in his dispute with defender Lord Ankerville. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Pringle v. Hamilton	1793	Prescription, Bill of Exchange, Debt, Oath, Action, Assignation	Pringle pursued Hamilton for payment of a bill of exchange drawn by David Cathcart in 1762, while Hamilton defended on the grounds that the instrument had not been duly negotiated and that the debt was prescribed. Pringle argued that Hamilton remained liable notwithstanding the alleged defect in negotiation and that the defense of prescription was inapplicable, but Cathcart answered that the debt had been discharged by payment made by his father. Hamilton subsequently petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor.
Rossel, et al v. Fraser	1787	Debt, Creditor, Promissory note, Bill of Exchange, Prescription, Succession	Patrick Fraser, merchant in Edinburgh, petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Eskgrove regarding his claim of debt. James Russel, William Cooper, and others, upholsterers in Edinburgh and trustees for Isobel Boog, answered the petition, contesting Fraser’s entitlement to the alteration. The dispute centered on whether the court should modify the prior interlocutor in favor of Fraser’s debt claim against the trust estate.
Simpson v. Sinton's Interlocutor	1793	Bankruptcy, Debt, Trustee, Creditor, Prescription, Bill of Exchange	Alexander Simpson, vintner at Bridge-end of Ayr, and other creditors of James Hunter, carrier in Ayr, a bankrupt, presented a reclaiming petition asking the Court to alter Lord Swinton's interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
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.
Sutherland & Gower v. Officers of State	1797	Teinds, Tack, Teind, Prescription, Lease, Possession
Sym v. King	1796	Debt, Prescription, Statute of limitations, Bill of Exchange, Trustees, Creditor	Sym pursued King to compel production of vouchers for payments the defender claimed to have made to creditors of his deceased son James King. King resisted by pleading prescription to bar action on a 1782 bill, citing a thirteen-year lapse and the debtor’s post-due assurances.
The Daughters of Alexander Drummond v. The Creditors of May Drummond	1794	Debt, Prescription, Creditor, Aliment, Cautioner, Succession	The Daughters of Alexander Drummond, as pursuers, and the Creditors of May Drummond, as defenders, were parties to a suit in which the Viscount of Arbuthnot petitioned the Court to permit payment of three bills granted by his deceased grandfather to his deceased father, dated 1773–1774 and payable in 1775. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
The Reverend David Brown v. Walter Hunter	1795	Teinds, Tack, Aliment, Prescription, Stipend, Succession	The Reverend David Brown, minister of Crailing, pursued Walter Hunter of Polmood regarding the vicarage teinds of Crailing, maintaining that his predecessors had historically drawn these teinds in kind and seeking restoration of that right, including tithe of hay from sown grass. Hunter moved to stay the action until Robert Scott of Trabrown, his author, was made a party to the suit. Brown thereafter petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor, and Hunter answered, specifically contesting the demand for tithe of hay from sown grass.