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 >>
Dunbar v Melville. [1566] Mor 6001 (12 February 1566)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1566/Mor1406001-206.html Cite as:
[1566] Mor 6001
A married woman's deeds in what cases effectual against herself, the husband consenting or not consenting.
Subject_3 SECT. X.
Husband's Consent, how interponed. Natural or Legal Incapacity in the Husband.
Dunbar v. Melville
Date: 12 February 1566 Case No. No 206.
A wife renounced a tenement in her husband's absence, in favour of her son, which was after wards ratified by the husband. Found, that such ratification was not sufficient to validate a deed ipso jure null; and that therefore a new renunciation, with the husband's consent, was necessary.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In an action of removing, intented by David Dunbar against Helen Meville, his mother, for removing her from a waste tenement, it was excepted by the said Helen, That she was infeft in liferent in the said tenement; whereto it was answered, That she had renounced her liferent of the same in favour of the pursuer her son, the time of his contract of marriage.—It was replied, That the time of the renunciation she was clad with a husband, who then was absent, and consented not thereto in the mean time.—It was answered by the pursuer, That her said husband was now deceased; and also before his death he ratified the said renunciation.—It was answered by the defender, That the renunciation being null from the beginning, as being done by a woman without consent of her husband, could not be valid by that ratification.——The Lords found the said renunciation was null from the beginning, and the ratification of the husband coming thereafter without her consent again of new, could not make the same sufficient.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 402. Maitland, MS. p. 209.
*** See Spottiswood's report of this case, No 195. p. 5993.
