BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Gordon sued Bogle before the Admiral Court for payment of a bill which a relation of his had accepted, to whom the defender had succeeded as heir. The Admiral precept, according to its usual form, made no mention of any particular debt; and before the action had been called in Court, when the libel was first filled up with a specification of the bill, the sexennial prescription had run. It appeared, however, that before the lapse of that time, a decree had been obtained against another person, who was co-obligant in the bill. The Lords found, that the execution on a blank Admiral precept does not interrupt prescription; but found, that the decree taken against one of the correi before the six years were elapsed interrupted the prescription as to all of them.
Fol. Dic. v. 4. p. 104. Fac. Col.
*** This case is No 247. p. 7532., voce Jurisdiction.
