Sir John Scot of Ancrum v. Sir Robert Douglas of Glenbervie
Date: 17 June 1737 Case No. No 508.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Prescription being proponed against a bond, by the principal debtor who was sued for payment, the pursuer produced a holograph receipt for a year's annualrent, granted by the creditor to the cautioner in the bond, and insisted upon the same as a sufficient interruption. Answered, A holograph writ does not prove its date against third parties. Replied, The defender, in this case, is not a third party in the sense of the brocard. A discharge granted to a cautioner is equally available to the principal, and as a holograph receipt granted to a cautioner is a good proof of payment in every question with the principal; if it prove for him that payment was made, it must prove against him that interruption was made, because this very payment makes interruption. The Lords found the prescription interrupted by the holograph discharge. See Appendix.
