W BUCHANAN & Ors, (Macqueen's Trustees) v R G MACDONALD (Court of Session)

In 1836, the pursuers brought this action against the defender, concluding for payment of L.1845, being the balance said to be due on an account-current between the late Hugh Macqueen and the defender. The pursuers alleged that Macqueen was the defender's general agent for a series of years. The defender denied this, and stated that he had never employed Macqueen except in a process against Glengarry.

The pursuers pleaded , that the sum in the bill having been entered, and continued in the account-current as an item of cash advanced, is not subject to the operation of the sexennial prescription.

The Lord Ordinary (3d June 1840) repelled the plea of prescription, observing in a note,

Lord Mackenzie .—I am of the same opinion. Mr Macqueen was not, as the Lord Ordinary states, ‘a stranger to the bill,’ but the drawer of it. The bill is not libelled on at all, but merely the account-current, of which the bill is an item.

Lord Fullerton .—I do not think that makes any difference on the question of the bill's prescription. In the account-current, credit is taken for the amount of the bill, and the bill is the voucher produced, which raises the point of prescription. I am of opinion that it has prescribed.