Walter Ruddiman v. The Merchant Maiden Hospital of Edinburgh
Date: 25 June 1746 Case No. No 355.
A right being assigned to a minor, his minority is to be deducted from the prescription, though the assignation has not been intimated.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Walter Ruddiman printer in Edinburgh, assignee by progress to a bond originally granted by Thomas Young son to Robert Young merchant there, pursued the Merchant Maiden Hospital of Edinburgh as being liable in the debt, by having accepted a gratuitous disposition from one of the representatives of Thomas Young.
The defence was prescription; and the reply, the minority of Thomas Smith, one of the intermediate authors to the pursuer.
Objected, That Thomas Smith having right by assignation, his minority could not be deducted, because the assignation not being intimated, the right was never vested in him, but remained in the cedent till the prescription was run.
Answered, That all rights competent to minors were saved to them by the statute; and it was only in competition with arresters, or other assignations intimated, that an unintimated assignation was defective.
“The Lords found, that there was sufficient presumptive evidence of the minority of Thomas Smith; and repelled the objection, that the assignation was not intimated.”
Reporter, Justice-Clerk.Act. A. Macdouall.Alt. C. Binning.Clerk, Gibson.
Fol. Dic. v. 4. p. 111. D. Falconer, v. 1. No 122. p. 150.
*** See further in this cause 30th July 1746, voce Presumption.
