Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR JOHN LAUDER, LORD FOUNTAINHALL.
Anent Interruptions of Prescription
Date: 5 December 1671
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
I Heard it doubted amongst the advocates, whether or no a bond or evident was prescribed, whereon nothing was done within the forty years but a naked charge to enter heir raised and executed, or if the said charge was sufficient to interrupt. I humbly think it was not a sufficient interruption, because the act of Parliament seems to require an express citation provoking to judgment; now a charge to enter is not a judicial act but only preparatory. 2do, Such charges are general, and seldom condescend on the special actions the charger has to intent; and, therefore, seem not to induce malam fidem, unless we would say that there was nothing else betwixt you and me save this right now questioned as prescribed. But the 10th act in 1669 clears what interruptions are lawful now; for, in time coming, they must be citations executed by messengers at arms, and must be revived every seven years. Vide supra, number 215, (July 11, 1671, Macraw against M'Donald;) and Gaillii observationes, libro observat. 67 and 76.
