Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
This was a pursuit on a bond granted by Airly's father, and sundry cautioners, for L. 1200, on the passive titles. The defence was prescription. Answered, Interruption within the 40 years by a summons executed. Replied, The summons is yet blank, unlibelled and unfilled up; and a summons blank is no summons. Duplied, Though this bond was not expressly libelled, yet it bore both before the will and after, that he and the other cautioner were convened to make payment of the debt upon all the passive titles; and it was marked by the clerk, called, and the advocate's name who compeared for the defender, which is a judicial act; and interruption being favourable, quævis insinuatio sufficit, though informal, especially seeing they could condescend upon no other ground of debt between the pursuers and defenders, save this bond only; and the pursuer was content to renounce all other, and so that was sufficient application to this specific debt, and a document taken thereon within the forty years; and less has been sustained for an interruption, as in the case of the Earl of Marishal and Leith, 14th July 1669, No 8. p. 10323.; and in the case of Muir contra Lawson, 11th February 1673, No 417. p. 11238, The Lords ordained the parties to inform, it being of consequense, and no informations had been given in; but the foresaid reasoning occurred to the Lords amongst themselves.
