If you found BAILII useful today, could you please make a contribution?

Your donation will help us maintain and extend our databases of legal information. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month donates, 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!


BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Scottish Court of Session Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Lindsays v L. Balgony. [1627] Mor 10718 (19 June 1627)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1627/Mor2510718-028.html
Cite as: [1627] Mor 10718

[New search] [View without highlighting] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


[1627] Mor 10718      

Subject_1 PRESCRIPTION.
Subject_2 DIVISION I.

Negative Prescription of Forty Years.
Subject_3 SECT. III.

Of the Act 28. Parl. 5. Jas. III. 1469, which enacts, that “Obligations” not followed out within 40 Years shall prescribe.

Lindsays
v.
L Balgony.

Date: 19 June 1627
Case No. No 28.

Found, that the act 1469 extends to testaments.


Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy

In an action betwixt Lindsays and L. Balgony, for payment to them as executors-datives to umquhile David Lindsay of Balgony their father, of the goods and gear contained in the testament of umquhile Lillias Oliphant, grand-mother to the defender, and who was convened as nephew and heir by progress to her; the Lords found, That the testament which was the title and ground of this pursuit, could not produce this action, seeing the same was dated and confirmed in the year 1585; and so 40 years were expired before the intenting of this pursuit, and consequently, that the same came under the act of prescription in the 5th and 7th Parliaments James III.; which was found, albeit these acts mentions only prescription of obligations, and this title was a testament, whereto the pursuer alleged these acts could not extend; which the Lords repelled, and sustained the prescription of the testament, and so much the rather, because there was no writ extant to prove the debt contained in the testament, and intromission therewith after so long time.

Alt. —. Alt Aiton. Clerk, Scot. Fol. Dic. v. 2. p. 98. Durie, p. 297.

The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting     


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1627/Mor2510718-028.html