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 >>
Knox v Brown. [1625] Mor 3065 (16 July 1625)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1625/Mor0703065-018.html Cite as:
[1625] Mor 3065
Rights conquest, but taken in favour of younger children. - Lands conquest, and again sold. - Liferent of conquest over and above the liferent of a certain sum. - Sums conquest, but applied for purging incumbrances. - Who heir of conquest?
Knox v. Brown
Date: 16 July 1625 Case No. No 18.
A provision to a wife in a contract of marriage, of her liferent of all sums ‘to be acquired by the husband, and taken to himself, and to his heirs,’ was found to comprehend the liferent of sums, the fee of which was provided to the second son.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Knox, relict of James Brown chirurgeon, having charged her son, as heir to her husband, conform to her contract of marriage, to fulfil the same to her, upon that clause thereof, whereby the husband obliged him and his heirs, to provide her to her liferent of all sums which he should conquish, and employ the same upon lands or annualrent, to himself and his heirs, during the time of their marriage; this clause the Lords found obligatory against the heir of the defunct, to bind him to employ and give the relict her liferent of all sums of money, which the husband had conquished during his lifetime, after the date of that contract, and which he had given out in heritable manner, and remained in that case, and of that nature, the time of his decease; and found, That the relict, by virtue of that clause, had right to seek her liferent of the heritable sums conquished by her husband, which were provided by him to his second son; albeit the clause of the contract was conceived in these terms, viz. “Obliging him and his heirs, to provide her to the liferent of the sums which he should conquish to himself or to his heirs;” which clause they found extended also to such sums as he had employed to his second son, and which was found prestable for her liferent by the heir, of these sums conquished to the second son.
Act. Stuart.Alt. Hope et Cunninghame.Clerk. Hay.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 199. Durie, p. 178.
