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!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Graham and Oliphant v Finlay's Bairns. [1629] 1 Brn 279 (10 February 1629) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1629/Brn010279-0710.html |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR GEORGE AUCHINLECK OF BALMANNO.
Date: Graham and Oliphant
v.
Finlay's Bairns
10 February 1629 Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Graham, relict of umquhile Finlay, her first husband, and spouse to Oliphant, her second husband, had a clause in her first contract of marriage, whereby her husband was obliged to infeft himself, and her and the heirs to bs gotten betwixt them, in all lands, annualrents, tacks, roums, possessions, or sums of money, that he shall happen to conquesch during his lifetime. Notwithstanding of the said contract, her umquhile spouse laid out certain sums of money, in some of his bairns' names. After his decease, she and her second husband pursue the bairns for her liferent of the said sums provided to them, being her husband's conquest, and so provided to her by the said contract of marriage; but the bairns being absolved, she intents a new action against her eldest son, being heir, to hear and see him decerned to provide to her as much annualrent, during her lifetime, as his father had provided his other bairns, seeing it was found that she could have no action against the said bairns for the same. It was answered, That the clause in the said contract could not be so strictly interpreted, that thereby a man should be debarred from making provision to his bairns out of a part of his conquest; and the wife being sufficiently provided, according to her estate and her husband's means, could have no action against the heir for providing to her as much as was disponed to the rest of the bairns. And it was farther alleged, This woman, being widow, with her consent caused fill up the bairns' names in the bonds, which wrere left blank, in her keeping, by her umquhile husband. Which two allegeances, being conjoined, the Lords found relevant.
Page 263.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting
