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

Scottish Court of Session Decisions

PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW


To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.


Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.


Thank you for your support!


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Ainslie v Watson. [1738] Mor 10736 (25 July 1738)
URL: https://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1738/Mor2510736-047.html
Cite as: [1738] Mor 10736

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


[1738] Mor 10736      

Subject_1 PRESCRIPTION.
Subject_2 DIVISION I.

Negative Prescription of Forty Years.
Subject_3 SECT. VI.

Cess. - Discharges. - -Annual prestations. - Exceptions. - Intrinsic objections.

Ainslie
v.
Watson

Date: 25 July 1738
Case No. No 47.

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

In a reduction of an adjudication, upon which possession had been obtained and continued above 40 years, though not without interruption, upon this ground, That though it was a total adjudication, a fifth part more was adjudged for, which is only competent in special adjudications;—the negative prescription being objected, it was answered, There is a difference betwixt intrinsic nullities and objections that are extrinsic, resolving into grounds of reduction. These, suppose the diligence to be valid in itself and effectual till it be taken out of the way by a sentence reducing and annulling the same; in which case the objection must be made within 40 years, otherwise the right of challenge is cut off by prescription. Those go upon the supposition, that the diligence is null and void, and a reduction upon that ground does not annul, but declares that it was null and void from the beginning; and a matter of fact may be declared at any distance of time. The Lords repelled the negative prescription. See Appendix.

Fol. Dic, v. 2. p. 99.

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: https://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1738/Mor2510736-047.html