Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In a pursuit for payment of a sum of money, it was alleged, That the pursuer's cedent was tutor to the defender, and had not made his account; which defence the Lords sustained against the assignee; but it was their meaning that the pursuer should not be delayed, and that a competent time should be given to the defender to pursue and discuss his tutor.
Reporter, Glendoick.Clerk, Mr John Hay.
Fol. Dic. v. 2. p. 50. Dirleton, No 376. p. 184.*** Stair reports this case
Spence, as assignee by David Scot to a sum of 2000 merks, pursues John Scot, as representing the defunct debtor, who alleged, No process, because the cedent was the defender's tutor, et præsumitur intus habere ante redditas rationes. It was answered, That the pupillarity was past ten years since, without any process, which was a stronger presumption that nothing was due.
The Lords found no process till a competent time, in which the tutor counts might be dispatched and closed with his pupil.
