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 >> Ninian Hamilton v John Swyne. [1629] 1 Brn 161 (11 December 1628) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1629/Brn010161-0365.html Cite as: [1629] 1 Brn 161 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
[1629] 1 Brn 161
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.
Date: Ninian Hamilton
v.
John Swyne
11 December 1628 Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
By contract of marriage betwixt John Swyne and Isabel Hamilton, he received with her in tocher 4000 merks, and was obliged, that in case there were no heirs begotten of that marriage, to pay to the heir and executors of Isabel 2000 merks, in contentation of the moveables, which should appertain to him for her part. She dieth, leaving behind her a son, who was confirmed executor to her; and, after he had lived two years after his mother, he died also. After his decease, Ninian Hamilton, brother to Isabel, is decerned executor dative ad omissa to his sister, before the commissary of Dunkeld, and confirmed the foresaid 2000 merks, as omitted out of the principal confirmed testament by her son, and obtained sentence against John Swyne for the same; which sentence he suspended, and craved to be reduced. One of the reasons was, That it could not be confirmed as omitted, because, at the time of the confirmation of the principal testament, it was not a debt owing, and so it could not be confirmed. Yet, notwithstanding of this reason, The Lords sustained the charge upon this title; for hardly could he have pursued it upon any other ground.
Page 119.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting
