Pound conform with Butter against Gray, No 363. p. 11183. Prescription of an inhibition found to run from the date of the last execution, and not from registration.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
John Lutefoot pursues reduction against Glencorss ex capite inhibitionis. The defender alleged absolvitor, because the inhibition is prescribed since the executions of the inhibition. It was answered, The registration of the inhibition was within prescription, and that being a diligence, which if wanting, the inhibition is null, prescription must be reckoned from it. It was answered, That decreets of registration are never accounted interruption, much less registration of inhibitions. The Lords found the prescription to run from the last execution of the inhibition, but not from the registration. It was further alleged, That albeit prescription run from the date in question, yet there is not 40 years since the term of payment, before which the creditor non valebat agere.
The Lords found the prescription not to run from the date, but from the term of payment.
Fol. Dic. v. 2. p. 123. Stair, v. 2. p. 761.*** Fountainhall reports this case:
The Lords found, That naked registration of bonds was not an interruption; and that prescription of bonds runs only from their term of payment, and not from their date; for before the term, non valet agere.
