An indigent young man of 18 having signed a bond with his father, revoked intra annes utiles. By Durie's report, this was not sustained by way of suspension. By Auchinleck's, the contrary.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In a suspension of charges upon a bond of 40 merks made to Murray by one Cochran, upon reason of the debtor's minority the time of the subscribing of the bond, he being then within 18 years in his father's house, and subscribing with his umquhile father, with whom he is bound conjunctly and severally, and getting neither benefit of the money alleged borrowed, nor benefit by his father's decease, being a poor young man; likeas, he has revoked that bond debito tempore intra annos utiles, in respect of his lesion; this reason was not sustained to be received by way of suspension, albeit both betwixt poor parties and a small sum, in respect that the suspender had not intented debito tempore intra annos utiles a summons of restitution in integrum to be reponed against the said bond, nor reduction upon the said revocation and minority; and found, that this reason of suspension upon that revocation, albeit done debito tempore intra annos utiles, interrupted not.
Act. ——.Alt. Nairn.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 585. Durie, p. 539.*** Auchinleck reports this case.
William Cochran is bound with his father conjunctly to pay John Murray 40 merks, with the annualrent thereof, during the not-payment of the principal. The creditor pursues not the debtor while after his father's decease, and registrates the bond, and charges the defender. He suspends, and alleges, that he made revocation intra annos utiles. It was replied, that a reason of suspension, founded on a naked revocation without reduction, was not relevant. —The Lords, in respect of the meanness of the matter, and poverty of the party, sustained the reason of suspension, proving his minority.
