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 >> Creditors of Park v Patrick Maxwell. [1785] Mor 11031 (16 February 1785)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1785/Mor2611031-229.html
Cite as: [1785] Mor 11031

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


[1785] Mor 11031      

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.

Creditors of Park
v.
Patrick Maxwell

Date: 16 February 1785
Case No. No 229.

The benefit of the act 1695 extends not to co principals, though there be muual stipulations of relief.


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

Arthur Park and William Rowand granted bond thus: “We grant us to be justly addebted and owing, equally betwixt us, the sum of L. 67, &c.; which sum we bind and oblige us, conjunctly and severally, to pay, &c And we oblige us to bear just and equal burden with each other in the premises, and to free, relieve, disburden, and skaithless keep one another, hinc inde, thereanent, pro rata parte,” &c. No diligence was done upon this bond within seven years from its date. Afterwards, however, an adjudication having been led for the whole debt against the subjects of Park, his other creditors

Objected; Park being, as to one half of the sum, a cautioner, having in his favour a clause of relief in the bond, was, on the lapse of seven years, “eo ipso free of his caution,” by virtue of the statute 1695; and so far the adjudication is null. For there is not any distinction to be made between those co-obligants whose interests and cautionary engagements are reciprocal, and such as interpose themselves as cautioners only; January 1728, Muir contra Ferguson, No 216. p. 11014.

Answered; The statute is in favour of those cautioners only who have a total relief; not of co-principals who have a mutual relief; whether it arises ex lege, or from stipulation; and therefore, two persons having granted bond, with a clause of mutual relief, one of them having been charged for the whole by the creditor, was found not to have the benefit of the statute; 22d January 1708, Ballantine contra Muir, No 211. p. 11010.

The Lord Ordinary “repelled the objection;” and a reclaiming petition having been preferred to the Court by the objectors, it was refused, without answers.

Lord Ordinary, Kennet. Act. Sinclair. Fol. Dic. v. 4. p. 101. Fac. Col. No 198. p. 311.

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/1785/Mor2611031-229.html