Triennial Prescription of Accounts, Act 1579. c. 83.
Maxwell v. Welsh
Date: 9 March 1633 Case No. No 281.
Triennial prescription not extended to intromitters with rents.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
One Maxwell donatar to the Lo. Herries' escheat, (which was confessed to be to the Lo. Herries' own behoof,) pursues by a special declarator Thomas Welsh messenger, to refund certain bolls of meal intromitted with by the defender, pertaining to the rebel yearly, of the years 1624, and sinsyne; and the defender alleging this action to be prescribed, conform to the act of Parliament anno 1579, whereby such actions are declared to be prescribed, except they be founded upon writ or oath of party, and thatthey are not probable otherwise; the Lords repelled this allegeance, and found this intromission and action libelled might be proved by witnesses, and that the same came not under the act of Parliament excepted upon, which extended to house-mails, merchant-counts, and others of the like nature, under which clause they found intromission with duties and farms of lands, and victual of lands, came noways; for albeit the master should not seek his farms within three years, it was found, that pursuit therefore might lawfully thereafter be sustained, and was probable by witnesses; but in the cause Porteous against Herries, 11th Dec. 1632, voce Proof, it was refused by way of exception, but there the pursuit was upon writ.
Act. Nicolson.Alt. ———.Clerk, Gibson.
Fol. Dic. v. 2. p. 120. Durie, p. 680.
