Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
The first question was, whether the case fell under the Scots triennial prescription, or under the English statute of limitations; and upon this point the Court held that the claim for the principal sum was to be decided by the law of Scotland where the action had been brought, and where the fund to be divided was situate. And, according to this law, they held that the plea of prescription was elided by the circumstances of the case; see Report, 24th February 1826.
The next question was, whether the claim of the pursuer to interest upon his debt from January 1809 was to be regulated by the law of England, or by that of Scotland; and their Lordships held that it was by the former law that this claim must be determined. The opinion of English counsel was, therefore, taken, which was, that according to the law of England, and the terms of the testator's settlement, no claim for interest on the balance of the pursuer's accounts, for any period antecedent to the date of the decree of constitution, could be supported.
The Court accordingly repelled the claim for interest prior to the date of the said decree of constitution.
Act. Maidment. J. J. Fraser, W. S. Agent. Alt. Murray. Scott, Finlay, and Balderston, W. S. Agents. S. Clerk.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.