JAMES LITTLE v JOHN RITCHIE (Court of Session)

In September 1831, John Ritchie raised a summons, in the Sheriff-court of Dumfriesshire, against the general representatives of his deceased employer, the late Mr Rea, concluding against them, as liable to him in L.106, the alleged arrears of wages due him at the period of Mr Rea's death. Rea died before Martinmas 1826, and the wages claimed were those due at Martinmas 1823, and those for the three succeeding years. The defenders called were the widow and heir as well as the younger children.

It was pleaded in defence, 1. That the executors should be discussed before the heir or widow could be called on as responsible for a moveable debt of the deceased; and, 2. That the claim was cut off by the running of the triennial prescription.

The Sheriff pronounced interlocutors, sisting procedure against the widow and heir till the executors should be discussed, and sustaining the defender's plea of the triennial prescription.

Ritchie advocated; and the case having come before Lord Corehouse, his Lordship pronounced the following interlocutor: ‘The Lord Ordinary remits to the Sheriff, with instructions to recall the interlocutors complained of; to find that prescription does not apply to any of the wages pursued for, and falling due within three years of the late Mr Rea's death; to allow parties a proof of their respective averments as to the wages claimed, and thereafter to proceed in the case as shall appear to him to be just: finds the advocator entitled to expenses.’

The Court considered the point of prescription as similar to that raised and decided in the cases of Lesly v. Mollison, Nov. 15. 1808; Broughton v. Weston, Feb. 24. 1826, and Elder v. Craig's Trustees, May 15. 1833.