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 >> James Clark v Isobel Buchanan. [1773] Mor 2664 (6 August 1773)
URL: https://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1773/Mor0702664-131.html
Cite as: [1773] Mor 2664

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


[1773] Mor 2664      

Subject_1 COMPENSATION - RETENTION.
Subject_2 SECT. XV.

Concursus Debiti et Crediti.

James Clark
v.
Isobel Buchanan

Date: 6 August 1773
Case No. No 131.

Compensation found not pleadable upon an open account, against which the triennial prescription had been run, before the date of the bill with which it was sought to be compensated.


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

Clark brought an action, in 1771, against Isobel Buchanan, as representing her husband, James Muir, surgeon in Glasgow, for payment of a bill of L. 20 Sterling, granted by him to the pursuer, 22d November 1757, payable one month after date.

Against Clark's demand upon this bill, the defender pleaded compensation upon an account of medicines and attendance, due to her deceased husband, by Clark and his mother. Clark admitted this account, in so far as respected himself; but in so far as it regarded his mother, whom he represented, he pleaded, That it was cut off by the triennial prescription. This account alleged due by the mother, commenced in the 1744, and ended in the 1750.

Observed on the Bench; That it was plainly prescribed before there was a mutual concourse.

The Court ‘sustained the objection of prescription to the account due by the mother;’ and upon a reclaiming bill and answers, ‘adhered.’

Act. D. Armstrong. Alt. Ro. Cullen. Clerk, Ross. Fol. Dic. v. 3. p. 150. Fac. Col. No 88. p. 223.

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/1773/Mor0702664-131.html