Vicennial Prescription of Retours, and of Holograph Writs.
Hamilton v. Hamilton and Others
Date: 17 November 1692 Case No. No 186.
The act 9th Parl. 1669 introducing the vicennial prescription of holograph bonds found to extend to bonds granted before that statute. See No 188. p. 10990.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In the case pursued by Archibald Hamilton, late Dean of Guild of Edinburgh, against Hamilton of Haggs and others, the Lords found a holograph bond prescribed, because not pursued for within 20 years after the act of Parliament 1669, though it was of a date prior to that act; and so they found, that the act extended not only to holograph writs subsequent to the act, but even prior to it, though laws commonly futuris tantum dant formam negotiis; and antecedent to that act, holograph writs did prescribe in 40 years, till they were abridged by this act to 20. And found, that a compensation founded upon in a process, within that 20 years, was a sufficient interruption, though the account under Hagg's hand, which was the ground of the said compensation, bore no date, only one article of it mentioned the year 1667; and found, though the said account bore not to whom it was due, yet the haver and present producer of it now was presumed to be the creditor therein, unless they instructed, that it belonged to another than him who how makes use of it.
Fol. Dic. v. 2. p. 113. Fountainhall, v. 1. p. 519.
