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 £5, 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 >>
Gichen v Davidson. [1623] Mor 7160 (4 December 1623)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1623/Mor1707160-036.html Cite as:
[1623] Mor 7160
Interdiction is reducible where destitute of a rational foundation.
Gichen v. Davidson
Date: 4 December 1623 Case No. No 36.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In a reduction of interdiction, pursued by Marion Gichen against John Davidson and Paul Hay, the Lords found the reason relevant, that the pursuer was rei suæ provida, and that no trial was taken, by any judge, that she was not able to manage her own affairs; and, in that case, was remembered the like reasons were found relevant in the action betwixt Colin Campbell and the Laird of Glenurchie, No 35. p. 7158.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 480. Haddington, MS. No 2939.*** Durie reports this case:
An assignation made by a woman called Gichen to Paul Hay and Davidson, of some money owing to her; and, in the assignation, she interdicts herself to the same two assignees; this interdiction was reduced, and the woman loosed, upon this reason, because it was against equity and reason, that the two assignees should have taken their cedent interdicted to them, there being no preceding just cause which could produce that effect, or for the which the woman ought, after that sort, to interdict herself to them, who acquiring the foresaid assignation, who ought not to have inserted also an interdiction in the body of that same writ, which are of so far different natures, and not compatible to subsist together, she being a woman, who, trusting to them, subscribed the writs, knowing and supposing no other thing to be insert but the assignation, and there never being of before, or then, any treaty of interdiction, and she never receiving any good deed for the same, nor no cognition, or trial taken before any judge, that she was a person that needed interdictors, which ought to have preceded; whereas she was and is rei suæ satis provida, and so the same being contra bonos mores to bind her after that manner, who ought to be loosed;———The Lords found the reason relevant, and therefore reduced; and that it needed no probation, that she was rei suæ provida, seeing the contrary was not alleged.
Act. M'Gill.Alt. Absent.Clerk, Scot.
Durie, p. 86.
