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 >>
Primrose v Lady Rossyth. [1579] Mor 5980 (20 December 1579)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1579/Mor1405980-177.html Cite as:
[1579] Mor 5980
A married woman's deeds in what cases effectual against herself, the husband consenting or not consenting.
Subject_3 SECT. V.
Bonds of Provision by Wives.
Primrose v. Lady Rossyth
Date: 20 December 1579 Case No. No 177.
A married woman became bound to provide a wife in a tocher, in consequence of which the husband granted her a suitable liferent. The obligation was found null, as being executed without consent of the granter's husband.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
There was ane Henry Primrose in Culross that pursued the Lady Rossyth, now spouse to the Abbot of Dunfermline, to hear and see a contract betwixt the said Henry and the said Lady registered, into the whilk the Lady was bound to pay certain sums of money for tocher good, et nomine dotis of Redheugh maiden to the said Lady and spouse to the said Henry. The Lady alleged, that the contract ought not to be registered, and also the Commendator of Dunfermline spouse to the said Lady alledged, the contract ought not to be registered, because the same was done without the consent of the husband, then, at the making thereof, in life. To this was answered, that her husband was then new departed, et sic res venit in hanc causam, a quo incipere potuit; and also the sums which the Lady was bound to pay, were in nomine dotis, and the said Henry had given the said woman state of the land in hope of the said sums. The Lords found, by interlocutor, that the contract ought not to be registered at the instance of the said Henry, against the said Lady, because it was made without consent of her husband, being in life the time of making the same
