Macadam v. Finlay [1910] ScotLR 27 (16 June 1910)
The IOU had prescribed under Statute 1669, cap. 9, as it was not pursued within twenty years of its delivery, and subsequent payments of interest did not revive or interrupt prescription. The IOU is inadmissible as evidence of debt unless its genuineness is proved by the defender's oath.
- Citation
- [1910] ScotLR 27
- Parties
- Pursuer: Alexander Macadam; Defender: Mrs Mary M'Kirdy or Findlay
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judgment Date
- 16 June 1910
- Procedural Posture
- Debt Recovery / Plea in Law on Prescription
- Outcome
- Defender's plea-in-law sustained; case continued.
- Legal Topics
- Vicennial Prescription, IOU, Proof of Debt, Statute 1669 Cap. 9
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Alexander Macadam
Pursuer
Mrs Mary M'Kirdy or Findlay
Defender
Procedural Posture
Debt Recovery / Plea in Law on Prescription
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether an IOU granted more than twenty years previously is prescribed under Statute 1669, cap. 9 and inadmissible as evidence of debt unless proved genuine by defender's oath
- 2 Whether payment of interest within the prescriptive period revives or interrupts prescription under the statute
Ratio Decidendi
The IOU had prescribed under Statute 1669, cap. 9, as it was not pursued within twenty years of its delivery, and subsequent payments of interest did not revive or interrupt prescription. The IOU is inadmissible as evidence of debt unless its genuineness is proved by the defender's oath.
Court Disposition
Defender's plea-in-law sustained; case continued.
Orders
- IOU held prescribed and inadmissible unless proved genuine by defender's oath.
- Case continued for further procedure.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment