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!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Scottish Court of Session Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Barbara Logan, Relict of Bernard Lindsay, v Her Husband's Creditors. [1628] 1 Brn 156 (21 March 1628)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1628/Brn010156-0351.html

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


[1628] 1 Brn 156      

Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION reported by SIR ROBERT SPOTISWOODE OF PENTLAND.
Subject_2 Such of the following Decision as are of a Date prior to about the year 1620, must have been taken by Spotiswoode from some of the more early Reporters. The Cases which immediately follow have no Date affixed to them by Spotiswoode.

Barbara Logan, Relict of Bernard Lindsay,
v.
Her Husband's Creditors

Date: 21 March 1628

Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy

Barbara Logan, relict and executrix confirmed to Bernard Lindsay, her husband, raised a summons of sextuple poinding, wherein she convened her husband's whole creditors, to hear and see her decerned to make forthcoming the whole free goods and gear contained in the inventory of her husband's testament, to them that should be found to have the best right thereto, and they thereafter to be discharged of all further troubling and pursuing her for the same. Compeared the Laird of Dalmahoy and James Rae, and disputed which of them should be preferred. Alleged for Dalmahoy, He ought; because, he being a lawful creditor, had obtained decreet against the executrix, gotten payment conform thereto, and had given discharge. Alleged for James Rae, He ought; notwithstanding of that decreet; because, long before it, yea, before the confirmation of the testament, he had raised summons of registration against the pursuer, as universal intromissatrix with her husband's goods; in respect whereof neither her posterior confirming of a testament, nor her summons raised, could prejudge his action intented before: and for the decreet, it cannot be respected, being given by collusion betwixt him and the executrix, who is his good-mother, she suffering a decreet to go against her for not-compearance; whereas, for a long time, she staid his action by her procurator's compearance, and keeping of the pieces. The Lords preferred Dalmahoy notwithstanding.

Page 115.

The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting     


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1628/Brn010156-0351.html