What diligence sufficient. - Effect of partial interruption.
Steele v. Earl of Home
Date: 4 August 1764 Case No. No 448.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The debtor in a bond defending himself upon the negative prescription of 40 years, the pursuer urged, That a process had been brought formerly for payment, which interrupted the prescription; and, in proof of this, an extracted act was produced, dated in 1682. Answered, This is not sufficient; the pursuer has not produced the summons, nor any other step of process in that pretended action. Replied, As soon as an act is extracted, the warrants of it are sent to the record; so that they could not be produced; but, at any rate, there is no necessity to produce warrants after so long a time. The Lords found the prescription validly interrupted.
Fol. Dic. v. 4. p. 114. Fac. Col. Kames.
*** This case is No 113. p. 5555. voce Heritable and Moveable.
