Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In a reduction of an adjudication, upon which possession had been obtained and continued above 40 years, though not without interruption, upon this ground, That though it was a total adjudication, a fifth part more was adjudged for, which is only competent in special adjudications;—the negative prescription being objected, it was answered, There is a difference betwixt intrinsic nullities and objections that are extrinsic, resolving into grounds of reduction. These, suppose the diligence to be valid in itself and effectual till it be taken out of the way by a sentence reducing and annulling the same; in which case the objection must be made within 40 years, otherwise the right of challenge is cut off by prescription. Those go upon the supposition, that the diligence is null and void, and a reduction upon that ground does not annul, but declares that it was null and void from the beginning; and a matter of fact may be declared at any distance of time. The Lords repelled the negative prescription. See Appendix.
