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!
You are here:BAILII >>
Databases >>
Scottish Court of Session Decisions >>
Executrix of Dr Matthew Wright v David Dickson. [1753] Mor 11106 (14 February 1753)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1753/Mor2611106-311.html Cite as:
[1753] Mor 11106
Triennial Prescription of Accounts, Act 1579. c. 83.
Executrix of Dr Matthew Wright v. David Dickson
Date: 14 February 1753 Case No. No 311.
Prescription of an account found to run from the last article.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In the year 1731, Baillie of Walston was, by an inquest in England, found lunatic, and the custody of his person was, by a grant under the Great Seal, committed to Dr Matthew Wright.
The Executrix of Wright pursued Dickson, as representing Walston, for payment of certain sums, said to have been expended for the use of Walston by Wright, as having the custody of his person.
Objected by Dickson; The statute of limitation, 21st James I. provides, ‘That all actions of account, other than what concern merchandize between merchant and merchant, shall be commenced within six years after the cause of action, and not after.’ Now, the account in question does not concern merchandize between merchant and merchant; and, although it commences in October 1731, yet was not pursued for until October 1738; and, therefore, as much of it as is not within six years of the date of the summons is, by the law of England, prescribed, and cannot be the ground of action.
Answered for the pursuer; An account is a claim composed of different articles, and the, prescription of accounts has, with us, been found to run from the last article; were the prescription to run from every single article, every such article would be an account by itself, which is contrary to the nature of an account as here described; and as the Court has so explained the prescription of accounts in our law, so also ought the prescription provided in the statute of limitation to be understood.
“The Lords found, that, by the statute of limitation, the account pursued on, prescribed only from the last article thereof.”
Act. R. Dundas & Haldane.Alt. Macintosh.Clerk, Justice.
Fol. Dic. v. 4. p. 108. Fac. Col. No 65. p. 100.
