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 >> George Mitciielson's Heir v Elisabeth Moubray. [1635] 1 Brn 354 (30 January 1635) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1635/Brn010354-0941.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: George Mitciielson's Heir
v.
Elisabeth Moubray
30 January 1635 Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Elisabeth Moubray, spouse to umquhile Gavin Mitchelson, being infeft, in conjunct fee, in two tenements of land in Lowe's Close in Edinburgh, upon bond for sums of money, and subscribed both by her umquhile husband and her to umquhile George Mitchelson, parson in Middletone;—the heir of umquhile George comprises the said tenements from umquhile Gavin, and the said Elisabeth, in her husband's time; and, after his decease, pursues removing against the said Elisabeth, relict. It was excepted for her, That she cannot be decerned to remove; because she was infeft, in conjunct fee with her husband, long before the comprising. It was replied, That, notwithstanding of the allegeance, yet the same ought to be repelled; because the said apprising was both led against her and her husband, upon bond subscribed by them both; and farther, she has compeared judicially before the bailie and clerk of Edinburgh, and ratified the said bond and comprising, and the Lords' allowance on the back, and infeftment to follow thereupon. To the which it was answered, That the exception stands relevant, notwithstanding of the reply; because a ratification made by her, stante matrimonio, not being subscribed by her, nor by two notaries at her command, is null. Which duply the Lords found relevant.
Page 266.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting
