What diligence sufficient. - Effect of partial interruption.
Robertson v. Robertson
Date: 5 July 1776 Case No. No 449.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
John Robertson pursued his niece Janet Robertson, as representing her father, the eldest son of Paul Robertson of Pittagown, for payment of 1000 merks, provided in Paul's marriage-Contract, to the heirs of the marriage. And, in 1763, the Court found the pursuer entitled only to one third of the sum, as there were three children of the marriage. The pursuer having obtained right from his sister Grizel to her third, brought action, in 1773, for that share. Urged on the part of the defenders, That much more than 40 years had elapsed between 1725, when this sum became payable to Grizel, and 1773, the date of the conveyance to the pursuers. Answered, The process in 1763, though only for the part, must interrupt the prescription as to the whole. The Lords sustained the defence of prescription. (See Appendix.)
