Macadam v. Finlay [1910] ScotLR 27 (16 June 1910)

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.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alexander Macadam

Pursuer

Mrs Mary M'Kirdy or Findlay

Defender

Procedural Posture

Debt Recovery / Plea in Law on Prescription

  1. 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. 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.