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 >> Wallace v Campbell. [1749] Mor 11026 (13 July 1749)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1749/Mor2611026-224.html
Cite as: [1749] Mor 11026

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


[1749] Mor 11026      

Subject_1 PRESCRIPTION.
Subject_2 DIVISION VII.

Septennial Prescription of Cautionary Obligations, by act 5th Parl. 1695.
Subject_3 SECT. II.

Who entitled to the benefit of the act 1695. - Can the benefit of it be renounced.

Wallace
v.
Campbell

Date: 13 July 1749
Case No. No 224.

The benefit of the septennial prescription may be renounced.

See No 214. p. 11013.


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

Campbell of Inverasragan having become cautioner for his brother Archibald, merchant in Inverary, to Campbell of Stonefield, in a bond of L. 100 Sterling, he paid the debt after the seven years were run, and thereafter obtained a disposition from his brother to his tack of a house in Inverary, for his relief.

In a competition between Inverasragan and Thomas Wallace, who had adjudged the subject prior to the said disposition in relief, it was objected by Wallace, That it was not in Inverasragan's power to rear up that debt in prejudice of his adjudication, by his neglecting to take the benefit of the exception he had by law to it, by the lapse of the seven years.

The Lords “Repelled the objection, in respect it could not appear but that Inverasragan had promised payment within the seven years.”

Though it has been doubted, whether one bound as cautioner could renounce the benefit of the act of Parliament anent principals and cautioners, in respect of the words of the act of Parliament, “That no man binding cautioner shall be longer bound than for seven years after the date of the bond;” yet, it is now of a long time a settled point, that these words are only to be understood of the obligation he came under by the bond itself; but that he may, by writ or promise, referring to the said cautionry obligation, become bound simply; and, accordingly, a bond of corroboration, granted by a cautioner, has, by repeated decisions, been sustained.

Another objection to this bond vide, also repelled of this date, inter eosdem, voce Writ.

Fol. Dic. v. 4. p. 102. Kilkerran, (Prescription.) No 17. p. 423.

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/1749/Mor2611026-224.html