Strang and Robertson v Fleet. [1907] Mor 11005 (5 January 1907)

Bonds of cautionry for tutors to make true account to their pupils do not fall under the septennial prescription of the Act of 1695, and thus the inhibition must be purged.

Citation: [1907] Mor 11005
Parties: Pursuers: Strang and Robertson; Defender: Fleet
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judgment Date: 05 January 1907
Procedural Posture: Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome: benefit of septennial prescription refused to cautioner
Legal Topics: Septennial Prescription, Cautionary Obligations, Tutor and Pupil, Bond of Relief

Prescription Contract Law Septennial Prescription Cautionary Obligations Tutor and Pupil Bond of Relief

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 1 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Strang and Robertson

Pursuers

Fleet

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether the septennial prescription under the Act of 1695 applies to a cautioner for a tutor to make true account to his pupil.
2 Whether the bond of cautionry falls within the scope of the Act of 1695.

Ratio Decidendi

Bonds of cautionry for tutors to make true account to their pupils do not fall under the septennial prescription of the Act of 1695, and thus the inhibition must be purged.

Court Disposition

benefit of septennial prescription refused to cautioner

Orders

inhibition must be purged