Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Subject_1 PRESCRIPTION.

Walkingshaw
v.
Knapperny

1737, Dec. 16.
Case No. No. 15.

Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy

The Lords were of very different opinions. Most part of us were for sustaining the answer of prescription, but upon different grounds. Some of us thought first, that the compensation was not liquid within the years of prescription, and therefore it could not stop the prescription; and 2dly, that though it had been liquid, it would not have hindered the running of the prescription; and I was one of those that was of that opinion upon both grounds. Vide 18th January 1712, Hemes against Maxwell, (Dict. No. 138. p. 2677.) Arniston was of the same opinion upon the last ground, but thought as to the first that the account produced by Walkinshaw proved it liquid within the years of prescription. But the President seemed to be against the prescription on both ground, and Tweddale had difficulty as to the second ground, but was of the opinion upon the first ground that it was not liquid. But we gave no judgment, because Knapperny offered to prove by Walkingshaw's oath the verity of his grandfather's subscription.