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 >> Edmonston [or Adamson] v The Laird of Freeland. [1630] 1 Brn 301 (12 January 1630) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1630/Brn010301-0786.html |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR GEORGE AUCHINLECK OF BALMANNO.
Date: Edmonston [or Adamson]
v.
The Laird of Freeland
12 January 1630 Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Edmonston, relict of umquhile Alexander Ruthven, charges the Laird of Freeland, as heir to his father, to bestow 2000 merks to her in liferent, conform to her contract of marriage. It is alleged for Freeland, that the sum was paid to the late Alexander, her spouse, and his discharge produced thereupon; and that she, being universal intromittrix with her husband's goods and gear, cannot convene Freeland for a deed which her husband should have done unto her, because he will have action against her to relieve him. It is replied, That, if the defender will condescend upon the goods and gear intromitted with by her, she shall purge the same. The defender alleges, That his exception is relevant, except she both condescend and purge. The Lords ordained the woman to condescend.—12th January 1630.
In the same action, after the woman had condescended upon the particulars intromitted with by her, within the house, being necessary,—it was alleged by Freeland, That he offers him to prove, that she intromitted with more nor was contained in her ticket whereupon she condescended. To the which it was answered, That he behoved to condescend upon such particulars as he alleged her to have intromitted with and omitted. It was answered by Freeland, He had no necessity to condescend upon particulars; but generally, That she intromitted with more goods and gear than was contained in her ticket. Which general condescendence the Lords sustained; reserving to their consideration, after probation, if thereby they would find her intromission with such particulars worthy to make her universal intromittrix.
Page 104.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting
