The effect of Prescription cannot be obtained by a person against himself.
Marquis of Clydesdale v. Earl of Dundonald
Date: 26 January 1726 Case No. No 393.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The estate of Paisley, &c. stood vested in the person of Lord Cochrane, tailzied to himself and heirs-male. After his decease, his grandfather, the Earl of Dundonald, who had no right in his person, granted a disposition of the same estate to the Lord Cochrane's son and his heirs-male; one of whom, above 40 years thereafter, altered the destination, and conveyed the estate to his daughter. The disposition granted by the Earl of Dundonald being null, as a non habente potestatem, the estate, in consequence, was found to be all the while in hæreditate jacente of the Lord Cochrane; upon which the heir-male, who had access to make up his titles to the Lord Cochrane, after the decease of him who conveyed the subject, as mentioned, to his daughter, quarrelled the conveyance, as being a gratuitous deed by an apparent heir; and the 40 years positive prescription, in consequence of the Earl of Dundonald's disposition, being pleaded in support thereof, the prescription was not found to run, in respect that no man can prescribe against himself.
Fol. Dic. v. 2. p. 126.
*** This case is No 2. p. 1262. voce Base Infeftment.
